Cancer: It’s what’s Best for Business (WW3 – World War Hypocrisy)

David H. Gorski, M.D., Ph.D., F.A.C.S., is a racist and a natural born killer

That’s right !

Dr. Gorski hates #cancer

He’s a bigot when it comes to breast cancer

Gorski sleeps, breathes, and blogs about breast cancer

He is an academic surgical oncologist specializing in breast surgery and oncologic surgery (Surgical Oncology Attending) at the Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, Detroit, Michigan specializing in breast cancer surgery, where he also serves as team leader for the Breast Cancer Multidisciplinary Team (MDT) at the Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Center, Co-Chair, Cancer Committee, Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Center, medical director of the Alexander J. Walt Comprehensive Breast Center at the Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Center (2010-present), Co-Leader of the Breast Cancer Biology Program, and the American College of Surgeons Committee on Cancer (ACS CoC) Cancer Liaison Physician as well as Associate Professor of Surgery at the Wayne State University School of Medicine; Faculty (2008-present), and member of the faculty of the Graduate Program in Cancer Biology at Wayne State University, MiBOQI project director (clinical champion) for Karmanos Cancer Center, site project director of the Michigan Breast Oncology Quality Initiative, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, a partnership between Karmanos and the University of Michigan, the new program co-director (Co-Medical Director) of the Michigan Breast Oncology Quality Initiative (MiBOQI); a state-wide initiative to improve the quality of breast cancer care using evidence-based guidelines, serves as the co-director of the Comprehensive Breast Center and is co-leader of the Breast Cancer Biology Program at Karmanos and Wayne State University School of Medicine, a Wayne State University Physician Group surgeon and chief of the Section of Breast Surgery (Breast Surgery Section) for the Wayne State University School of Medicine (2009-present), serves as an associate professor of surgery and Oncology at Wayne State University School of Medicine, Detroit, Michigan, and Treasurer and on the Board of Directors, and also serves the Institute for Science in Medicine as head of its childhood immunization committee

Prior to joining Karmanos and Wayne State University School of Medicine, was an associate professor of surgery at The Cancer Institute of New Jersey and the UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in New Brunswick, NJ, as well as a member of the Joint Graduate Program in Cell & Developmental Biology at Rutgers University in Piscataway, N.J.

1984 – Graduation with Honors and High Distinction in Chemistry

1994 – MetroHealth Medical Center Resident Research

He attended the University of Michigan Medical School, received his B.S. in chemistry from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, medical degree (M.D.) from the University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, Michigan, University of Chicago Fellowship, Surgical Oncology, Case Western Reserve University / University Hospitals Case Medical Center Internship, General Surgery, Case Western: Reserve University / University Hospitals Case Medical Center Residency, General Surgery, and received his Ph.D. in cellular physiology at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio

1998 – American Board of Surgery

Assistant Professor of Surgery UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey

1999 – 2006: Assistant Professor of Surgery

1999 – 2008: Active, Surgical Oncology and General Surgery

2005 – 2006: Active, Surgical Oncology and General Surgery

2007 – American Society of Clinical Oncology Advanced Clinical Research

2007 – Conquer Cancer Foundation of ASCO and Breast Cancer Research Foundation Advanced Clinical Research Award in Breast Cancer

2006 – 2008: Associate Professor of Surgery

Faculty, General Surgery, St. Peter’s University Hospital, New Brunswick, New Jersey

Attending Surgeon, Trauma Services, Lutheran General Hospital, Park Ridge, Illinois

2015 – Michigan State Medical License (Active through)

2015 – Ohio State Medical License (Active through)

Managing Editor of the Science-Based Medicine weblog, as well as a once-weekly contributor

SBM exists to take a skeptical, science-based view of medicine in general and in particular the infiltration of pseudoscientific practices into medicine, even in academic medical centers

These entities must have felt lucky to add a University of Michigan alum to their toolbox, a wolverine; a creature also known as a glutton or skunk bear

Who would doubt that Gorski would be a glutton for punishment when it comes to raising a big stink about breast cancer issues ?

Surely he was aware: Detroit, Michigan; the most populous city in the state of Michigan, with a population of 701,475 (2012) (9,883,360 – Michigan), 575,321 (81.4%) being African American (Black); a little less than six times the national average (82.7% – 2010 / about 83% – 2012) (Michigan – 14.2% – 2010), 369,616 Females (52.7% – 2012 / 53% – 2010) (Michigan 50.9%)

No doubt he knew that the most recent American Cancer Society Cancer Facts & Figures, noted:
——————————————————————
• Studies have documented unequal receipt of prompt, high-quality treatment for African American women compared to white women

• African Americans more likely to be diagnosed at later stage of disease when treatment choices are more limited and less effective

• African Americans and other racial minorities are underrepresented in clinical trials, which makes it more difficult to assess efficacy of cancer therapies among different racial/ethnic groups

• African Americans have highest death rate and shortest survival of any racial and ethnic group in US for most cancers

• Life expectancy lower for African Americans than whites among women (77.2 vs. 80.9 years)

• Higher death rate in African American women compared to white women occurs despite lower cancer incidence rate

• Racial difference in overall cancer death rates is due largely to cancers of the breast and colorectum in women

• African American women have higher death rates overall and for breast and several other cancer sites

• African Americans continue to have lower 5-year survival overall:
69% – whites
60% – African Americans
and for each stage of diagnosis for most cancer sites

• Evidence aggressive tumor characteristics more common in African American than white women
——————————————————————
Gorski worked tirelessly to address the problem, by appearing on TV, radio, Internet radio, in articles and on his blogs

Soon, the locals were remarking about the “Gorski Patient Group” web-site which was set up to display anecdotal stories of breast cancer patients who were “cured” by Gorski

How has his hard work paid off ?
——————————————————————
Are these Dr. David H. Gorski’s “success stories” ?
——————————————————————
African American women breast cancer death rates per 100,000 (MICHIGAN)
—————————————————————–
34.3☝2005_-_2009 (State with 11 most) 2013-2014
33.8👇2003_-_2007 (State with 11 most) 2011-2012
34.7👇2001_-_2005 (State with 17 most) 2009-2010
35.4👇2000_-_2003 (State with 19 most) 2007-2008
36.2👇1997_-_2001 (State tied with 20 most) 2005-2006
——————————————————————
BREAST CANCER
——————————————————————
WHITE-INCIDENCE-MICHIGAN (per 100,000)
——————————————————————
118.7👇2006_-_2010 (2013-2014)
120.1👇2004_-_2008 Incidence (2011-2012)
124.3👇2002_-_2006 (2009-2010)
129.9👇2000_-_2004 (2007-2008)
133.9☝1998_-_2002 (2005-2006)
132.1☝1996_-_2000 (2003-2004)
——————————————————————
WHITE-MORTALITY-MICHIGAN (per 100,000)
——————————————————————
22.8👇2006_-_2010 (2013-2014)
23.4👇2003_-_2007 Mortality (2011-2012)
23.8👇2002_-_2006 (2009-2010)
24.6👇2000_-_2004 (2007-2008)
25.9👇1998_-_2002 (2005-2006)
27.3👇1996_-_2000 (2003-2004)
——————————————————————
AFRICAN AMERICAN-INCIDENCE-MICHIGAN (per 100,000)
——————————————————————
119.4☝2006_-_2010 (2013-2014)
119.2👇2004_-_2008 Incidence (2011_-_2012)
121.0☝2002_-_2006 (2009-2010)
119.0👇2000_-_2004 (2007-2008)
120.6👇1998_-_2002 (2005-2006)
121.4☝1996_-_2000 (2003-2004)
——————————————————————
AFRICAN AMERICAN-MORTALITY-MICHIGAN (per 100,000)
——————————————————————
34.3☝2006_-_2010 (2013-2014)
33.8👇2003_-_2007 Mortality (2011-2012)
34.6👇2002_-_2006 (2009-2010)
35.0👇2000_-_2004 (2007-2008)
36.0👇1998_-_2002 (2005-2006)
36.9👇1996_-_2000 (2003-2004)
——————————————————————
HISPANIC-INCIDENCE-MICHIGAN (per 100,000)
——————————————————————
80.1👇2006_-_2010 (2013-2014)
92.7☝2004_-_2008 Incidence (2011-2012)
——————————————————————
HISPANIC-MORTALITY-MICHIGAN (per 100,000)
——————————————————————
15.8☝2006_-_2010 (2013-2014)
14.26☝2003_-_2007 Mortality (2011-2012)
——————————————————————
INCIDENCE-MICHIGAN (per 100,000) COMBINED
——————————————————————
119.4☝2006_-_2010 AFRICAN AMERICAN (2013-2014)
118.7👇2006_-_2010 WHITE (2013-2014)
80.1👇2006_-_2010 HISPANIC (2013-2014)
——————————————————————
MORTALITY-MICHIGAN (per 100,000) COMBINED
——————————————————————
34.3☝2006_-_2010 AFRICAN AMERICAN (2013-2014)
22.8👇2006_-_2010 WHITE (2013-2014)
15.8☝2006_-_2010 HISPANIC (2013-2014)
——————————————————————
MICHIGAN – Estimated New Breast Cancer Cases:
——————————————————————
8,140☝2013 (State with 8th most)
7,710👇2012 (State with 8th most)
7,890☝2011 (State with 8th most)
7,340☝2010 (State with 8th most)
6,480☝2009 (State with 8th most)
6,120👇2008 (State with 9th most)
7,210👇2005 (State with 9th most)
7,270👇2004 (State with 9th most)
7,500☝2003 (State with 8th most)
7,300☝2002 (State with 8th most)
——————————————————————
Are these Dr. David H. Gorski’s “success stories” ?
——————————————————————
MICHIGAN – Estimated Breast Cancer Deaths:
——————————————————————
1,360☝2013 (State with 8th most)
1,350☝2012 (State with 8th most)
1,320 – 2011 (State with 9th most)
1,320👇2010 (State with 10th most)
1,350☝2009 (State with 9th most)
1,310 👇2008 (State with 9th most)
1,320 👇2007 (State with 9th most)
1,360 👇2006 (State with 9th most)
1,380☝2005 (State with 9th most)
1,350👇2004 (State with 9th most)
1,400 – 2003 (State tied with 8th most)
1,400☝2002 (State tied with 8th most)
——————————————————————
MICHIGAN – Cancer Incidence Rates
——————————————————————
120.3 – 2013 (State with 32nd most)
120.3👇2012 (State with 30th most)
122.2👇2011 (State with 24th most)
124.2👇2010 (State with 17th most)
127.0👇2009 (State with 11th most)
128.8👇2008 (State with 13th most)
129.4👇2007 (State tied with 18th most)
132.4👇2006 (State with 14th most)
133.5☝2005 (State with 13th most)
132.0☝1996_-_2000 (State with 14th most) 2004
129.8☝1995_-_1999 (State with 23rd most)(31st State’s) 2003
109.9👇1994_-_1998 Michigan – Cancer Incidence Rates (2002)
132.0☝1996_-_2000 (State with 14th most) (2004)
129.8☝1995_-_1999 (State with 23rd most) (2003)
109.9☝1994_-_1998 (State with 20th most) (2002)
——————————————————————
MICHIGAN – Cancer Death Rates:
——————————————————————
24.0👇2013 (State tied with 11th most)
24.4👇2012 (State tied with 13th most)
24.5👇2011 (State tied with 16th most)
25.1👇2010 (State tied with 12th most)
25.3👇2009 (State tied with 17th most)
25.8👇2008 (State tied with 18th most)
26.6👇2007 (State tied with 14th most)
27. 5 – 2006 (State tied with 12th most)
27.5👇2005 (State tied with 13th most)
28.4👇1996_-_2000 (State tied with 14th most) (2004)
29.5☝1995_-_1999 (State tied with 14th most) 2003
24.8☝1994_-_1998 (State with 14th most) 2002
——————————————————————
The problem, is that, when the Hippocratic Oath
was mentioned, Gorski may have opted for the Hypocrite Oath

Rather than address the BILLIONS of dollars in fines which Big Pharma racked up, and Pharma’s seeming dedication to getting members of the unwitting public, to take medications for symptoms which they were not approved for; and thus possibly experience adverse effects those drugs cause, Gorski chose to NOT comment about his goose that might lay the golden (parachute) nest egg

Instead, he tried the Tricky-Dicky trickle-down theory of Hackademic Mudicine (“Quackademic Medicine”); which did NOT work when Richard Milhous (“War on Cancer”) Nixon was told:

“There’s a cancer on the Presidency”

What Gorski seems hilariously oblivious to, is that his opprobrium; to turn a phrase, applies to him:
——————————————————————
(.3:16)
——————————————————————
When he mentions:

“ineffective and potentially harmful medical practices that were not, that are not supported by evidence”

he may as well be saying, in regards to surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation:

“ineffective and potentially harmful medical practices that were, that are supported by evidence“

(the evidence that they do NOT work for everyone)
——————————————————————
(.3:42)
——————————————————————
To use his own words, he seems:

“confused, at best”
——————————————————————
(.4:45)
——————————————————————
He also displays:

“an animosity toward reason”
——————————————————————
(.4:49)
——————————————————————
“Nothing’s changed within 30 years

If anything, it’s worse”
——————————————————————
(.6:45)
——————————————————————
He states:

“Alternative = unproved”

There goes “Alternative Rock,” or the “alternative” to an attempted Gorski joke: “happiness is a warm gun”

I’m somewhat surprised that Gorski has yet to classify antineoplastons as “Homeopathy: Ultra-diluted chemotherapy”
——————————————————————
(28:15)
——————————————————————
But he does rant that rival Cleveland Clinic where he had his residency, has been infiltrated by the Q.M.
——————————————————————
(39:10)
——————————————————————
And that his alma-mater, the University of Michigan has also queued in the “Quackademic” line
——————————————————————
(44:00)
——————————————————————
He bemoans the mighty wolverine:

“Again my alma-mater”

“I hang my head in shame”
——————————————————————
(44:10)
——————————————————————
And to add injury to insult, his “former employer,” UMDNJ (University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey)-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Brunswick, New Jersey, has also been bitten by the Quackademic Duck

I’m sure Gorski will be able to formulate a usual factoid #fail for his #failure to “cure” cancer, vis-a-vis “Orac”, the literary Hack, braying in the wilderness and awaiting his Red Badge of Courage

Maybe “too many people copulating” in Detroit, or too many Louisiana hurricane Katrina survivors added to the sandbox

Is Gorski a racist ?

That’s up to all the African American women in Detroit, Michigan, to decide

Maybe he’s just a really bad hypocrite

NOr, maybe he needs to spend less time on the “hypocuresy,” and more time on the “CURE”

Maybe the African American women of Detroit, Michigan, and the United States of America should ask Gorski:

What have you done for me lately ?
——————————————————————

——————————————————————
“And, make no mistake about it, antineoplastons (ANPs) are chemotherapy, no matter how much Burzynski tries to claim otherwise”
——————————————————————
NO, Gorski, the United States’ 5th Circuit Court of Appeals claimed that antineoplastons (ANPs) are:

“…an unapproved drug, not ordinary “chemotherapy”

no matter how much YOU try to claim otherwise

What are you ?

A Saul Green closet communist who does NOT believe what the United States’ Federal Courts rule ?

——————————————————————

——————————————————————
“Indeed, it was a blatant ploy, as Burzynski’s lawyer, Richard Jaffe, acknowledged, referring to one of his clinical trials as a “joke” and the others as a way to make sure there was a constant supply of new cancer patients to the Burzynski Clinic“
——————————————————————

——————————————————————
” … in 1997, his medical practice was expanded to include traditional cancer treatment options such as chemotherapy, gene targeted therapy, immunotherapy and hormonal therapy in response to FDA requirements that cancer patients utilize more traditional cancer treatment options in order to be eligible to participate in the Company’s Antineoplaston clinical trials“

“As a result of the expansion of Dr. Burzynski’s medical practice, the financial condition of the medical practice has improved Dr. Burzynski’s ability to fund the Company’s operations”
——————————————————————
GorskGeek, my citations, references, and / or links, beat your NON-citations, NON-references, and / or NON-links
======================================
AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY:
CANCER FACTS & FIGURES (2002-2014)
======================================
2002_-_2003 – 1 of every 4 deaths
======================================
Deaths – United States of America
——————————————————————
2013 – almost 1,600 a day
2002-2012☝1,500+ a day
——————————————————————
Expected to Die – United States
——————————————————————
2013☝580,350_-_(3,160 more than 2012)
2012☝577,190_-_(5,240 more than 2011)
2011☝571,950_-_(2,460 more than 2010)
2010☝569,490_-_(7,150 more than 2009)
2009👇562,340_-_(3,310 less than 2008)
2008☝565,650_-_(6,000 more than 2007)
2007👇559,650_-_(5,180 less than 2006)
2006👇564,830_-_(5,450 less than 2005)
2005☝570,280_-_(6,580 more than 2004
2004☝563,700_-_(7,200 more than 2003)
2003☝556,500_-_(6,000 more than 2002)
2002☝555,500
——————————————————————
Estimated All Cancer Deaths (Women)
——————————————————————
2013👇273,430 (1,940 less than 2012)
2012☝275,370 (3,850 more than 2011)
2011☝271,520 (1,230 more than 2010)
2010☝270,290 (490 more than 2009)
2009👇269,800 (1,730 less than 2008)
2008☝271,530 (1,430 more than 2007)
2007👇270,100 (3,460 less than 2006)
2006👇273,560 (1,440 less than 2005)
2005☝275,000 (2,190 more than 2004)
2004☝272,810 (2,210 more than 2003)
2003☝270,600 (3,300 more than 2002)
2002_-_267,300
——————————————————————
Estimated cancer deaths – African Americans expected to die from cancer:
——————————————————————
2013👇64,645 – 22.6% (2013-2014)
2011☝65,540 (About) (2011-2012)
2009☝63,360 (About) (2009-2010)
2007☝62,780 (About) (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
Estimated Breast Cancer Deaths (Women)
——————————————————————
2013☝39,620 (14%) (110 more than 2012)
2012👇39,510 (14%) (10 less than 2011)
2011👇39,520 (15%) (320 less than 2010)
2010👇39,840 (15%) (330 less than 2009)
2009👇40,170 (15%) (310 less than 2008)
2008☝40,480 (15%) (20 more than 2007)
2007👇40,460 (15%) (2007-2008) (510 less than 2006)
2006☝40,970 (15%) (560 more than 2005)
2005☝40,410 (15%) (300 more than 2004)
2004☝40,110 (15%) (310 more than 2003)
2003☝39,800 (15%) (200 more than 2002)
2002 – 39,600 (15%)
——————————————————————
Estimated Deaths from Breast cancer expected to occur among African American women:
——————————————————————
6,080☝2013 – 19% (2013-2014)
6,040☝2011 – 19% (2011-2012)
6,020☝2009 – 19% (2009-2010)
5,830☝2007 – 19% (2007-2008)
5,640☝(2005-2006)
5,640 – 1969-2002 – 18.4% – 2005 (2005-2006)
======================================
New Cancer Cases Expected to be diagnosed – USA
——————————————————————
2013☝1,660,290 – (21,380 more than 2012)
2012☝1,638,910 – (42,240 more than 2011)
2011☝1,596,670 – (67,160 more than 2010)
2010☝1,529,560 – (49,810 more than 2009)
2009☝1,479,350 – (42,170 more than 2008)
2008👇1,437,180 – ( 7,740 less than 2007)
2007☝1,444,920 – (45,130 more than 2006)
2006☝1,399,790 – (26,880 more than 2005)
2005☝1,372,910 – ( 4,870 more than 2004)
2004☝1,368,030 – (33,930 more than 2003)
2003☝1,334,100 – (49,200 more than 2002)
2002☝1,284,900
——————————————————————
Estimated New Cancer All (Women)
——————————————————————
2013☝805,500 – (14,760 more than 2012)
2012☝790,740 – (16,370 more than 2011)
2011☝774,370 – (34,430 more than 2010)
2010☝739,940 – (26,720 more than 2009)
2009☝713,220 – (21,220 more than 2008)
2008☝692,000 – (13,940 more than 2007)
2007👇678,060 – (1,450 less than 2006)
2006☝679,510 – (16,640 more than 2005)
2005👇662,870 – (5,600 less than 2004)
2004☝668,470 – (9,670 more than 2003)
2003☝658,800 – (11,400 more than 2002)
2002_-_647,400
——————————————————————
Estimated New invasive Breast Cancer Cases: (Women)
——————————————————————
2013☝232,340 (29%) (5,470 more than 2012)
2012👇226,870 (29%) (11,610 less than 2011)
2011☝238,480 (30%) (31,390 more than 2010)
2010☝207,090 (28%) (14,720 more than 2009)
2009☝192,370 (27%) (9,910 more than 2008)
2008☝182,460 (26%) (3,980 more than 2007)
2007👇178,480 (26%) (2007-2008) (34,440 less than 2006)
2006☝212,920 (31%) (1,680 more than 2005)
2005👇211,240 (32%) (4,660 less than 2004)
2004☝215,900 (32%) (4,600 more than 2003)
2003☝211,300 (32%) (7,800 more than 2002)
2002_-_203,500 (31%)
——————————————————————
Estimated new cases – new cancer cases expected to be diagnosed among African Americans:
——————————————————————
2013☝176,620 (2013-2014)
2011☝168,900 (About) (2011-2012)
2009👇150,090 (About) (2009-2010)
2008☝182,460 (26%)
2007_-_152,900 (About) (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
Estimated new cases of in situ breast cancer expected to occur:
——————————————————————
64,640☝(2013) (1,340 more than 2012)
63,300☝(2012) (5,650 more than 2011)
57,650☝(2011) (3,640 more than 2010)
54,010👇(2010) (8,270 less than 2009)
62,280👇(2009) (5,490 less than 2008)
67,770☝(2008) (5,740 more than 2007-2008)
62,030☝(2007-2008) (50 more than 2006)
61,980☝(2006) (3,490 more than 2005-2006)
58,490👇(2005-2006) (900 less than 2004)
59,390☝(2004) (3,690 more than 2003)
55,700☝(2003) (1,400 more than 2002)
54,300☝(2002)
——————————————————————
Estimated New Cancer Cases – African Americans – Breast
——————————————————————
2013☝27,060 – 33% (2013-2014)
2011☝26,840 – 34% (2011-2012)
2009☝19,540 – 25% (2009-2010)
2007☝19,010 – 27% (2007-2008)
19,240 – 1979-2001 – 29.9% – 2005 (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
Estimated new cases of in situ breast cancer expected to occur = detection of below # of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS):
——————————————————————
54,944 (2013)
85% (2003-2012)
88% (2002)

1998-2002 accounted for about 85% of in situ breast cancers diagnosed (2005-2006)
1980-2001 – Incidence rates of DCIS increased more than sevenfold in all age groups, although greatest in women 50 and older (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
LEADING CAUSE OF DEATH
——————————————————————
2013 – breast cancer expected to be most commonly diagnosed cancer in women
——————————————————————
BREAST CANCER – 2nd
——————————————————————
2013 – Breast cancer 2nd most common cause of cancer death among African American women, surpassed only by lung cancer (2009-2012)
(2007)
——————————————————————
2003 – Breast cancer is 2nd among cancer deaths in women

2002-2003: 2nd leading cause of death

2002 – Breast cancer 2nd leading cause of death
————————————-
Breast cancer most common cancer among African American women

34% – (2011-2012)
25% – (2009-2010)
2007
——————————————————————
2011 – New Cases
(2011-2012)

New Cases: Breast cancer most commonly diagnosed cancer among African American women
——————————————————————
BREAST CANCER – AFRICAN AMERICAN WOMEN
——————————————————————
34% – African American women most common cancer (2011-2012)

African American Women Most common cancer (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
2005 – African American women – more likely to die from at any age
——————————————————————
ESTIMATED WOMEN BREAST CANCER DEATHS
——————————————————————
19% – number of cancer deaths breast cancer in women (2007-2012)
——————————————————————
since 1990 – Death rates from breast cancer steadily decreased in women (2009-2010)

since 1990 – death rate from breast cancer in women decreased (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
1.9% – 2000-2009 cancer mortality rate for women of all races combined declined annually (2012-2013)
——————————————————————
1990-2006 – death rate from breast cancer in women decreased (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
2.2% – 1990-2004 cancer mortality rate for women of all races combined decreased annually (2007-2008)

decline larger among younger age groups (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
2.3% – 1990-2002 rate decreased annually – percentage of decline larger among younger age groups (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
2.3% – 1990-2000 breast cancer death rates decreased annually (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
1992-1998 – mortality rates declined significantly

largest decreases in younger women, both white and black (2002)
——————————————————————
1.6% – 1975-1991 – Breast Cancer Death Rates Increased annually (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
0.4% – 1975-1990 – breast cancer death rates increased annually (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
0.4% – 1975-1990 death rate for all races combined increased annually (2005-2008)
——————————————————————
rate for women of all races combined decreased annually (2007-2008)

decline larger among younger age groups (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
BREAST CANCER – OLDER WOMEN
——————————————————————
Older women much more likely to get breast cancer than younger women
——————————————————————
% FEMALE BREAST CANCER DEATH RATES (age)
——————————————————————
97% – 1998-2002 – age 40 and older (2005-2008)
96% – 1996-2000 – age 40 and older (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
WOMEN YOUNGER than 50
——————————————————————
3.0% – under age of 50 – Mortality from breast cancer declined faster for women (annually from 2005-2009) regardless of race/ethnicity (2013)
——————————————————————
2.3% – 1990-2001 Breast Cancer Death Rates decrease

largest decrease in < 50 (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
3.7% – 1991-2000 under 50 breast cancer Death rates decreased (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
3.3% – 1990-2004 – death rates decreased per year among women younger than 50 (2005c-2008)
——————————————————————
2.3% – 1990-2002 Death rates from breast cancer declined average per year in all women combined, with larger decreases in younger (<50 years) women (2006)
——————————————————————
WOMEN 50 and older
——————————————————————
1.2% – 50 and older – decrease in breast cancer death rates smaller in African American than white women (2009-2010)
——————————————————————
2.0% – 50 and older – 1990-2004 – death rates decreased per year among women (2005-2008)
——————————————————————
WHITE WOMEN
——————————————————————
2.1% – 2000-2009 – breast cancer death rates declined per year in white women
——————————————————————
2.6% – 1992-2000 – breast cancer Death rates Whites (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
2.4% – 1990-2004 female breast cancer death rates declined per year in whites (2005-2008)
——————————————————————
early 1980’s – Breast Cancer Death Rates equal – African American / White (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
AFRICAN AMERICAN WOMEN – ALL CANCERS
——————————————————————
1.5% – since 1999 – Death rates among women (African Americans for all cancers combined) per year have been decreasing (2011-2012)
——————————————————————
AFRICAN AMERICAN WOMEN BREAST CANCER DEATHS
——————————————————————
black women more likely to die of breast cancer than white women (2012-2013)
——————————————————————
2005-2006 African American women more likely to die from breast cancer at every age
——————————————————————
41% – 2005-2009 African American women had higher death rate than white women despite lower incidence rate

39% – 2003-2007 – African American women had higher death rate than white women, despite lower incidence rate (2011-2012)

difference accounts for more than one-third (37%) of overall cancer mortality disparity between African American and white women (2011-2012)

37% – 2001-2005 – African American women had higher death rate than white women (2009-2010)

higher breast cancer mortality rate among African American women compared to white women occurs despite lower incidence rate (2009-2010)

difference accounts for more than one-third (37%) of overall cancer mortality disparity between African American and white women (2009-2010)

higher breast cancer mortality rate among African American women compared to white women occurs despite lower incidence rate (2007)

notable, striking divergence in long-term breast cancer mortality rates trends between African American and white women (2005-2008)

36% – by 2004 – death rates higher in African Americans than white women (2007-2008)
37% – by 2002 – death rates higher in African American women than white women (2005-2006)
36% – 2000-2003 – death rates higher in African American women than white women (2007)

difference accounts for one-third of excess cancer mortality experienced by African American women compared to white women (2007)

32% – 2000 – Breast Cancer Death rate higher in African American women even though had lower incidence rates (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
AFRICAN AMERICAN WOMEN – 50 and older
——————————————————————
1.2% – 50 and older – 1992-2012 – per year – women (2011-2012)

2.0% – 50 and older – Breast Cancer Death Rates – per year (2009-2010)
——————————————————————
1.2% – 50 and older – decrease in breast cancer death rates smaller in African American than white women (2009-2010)

1.1% – 50 and older – 1991-2007 – African American women Breast cancer death rates declined annually (2007)

2.0% – 50 and older – 1990-2000 – breast cancer Death rates decreased (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
1990 – 50 and older – Breast Cancer Death Rates Increase predominantly due to
——————————————————————
AFRICAN AMERICAN WOMEN – under 50
——————————————————————
2.0% – 1992-2012 – decrease larger in women under 50 – declined thereafter per year (2011-2012)

1.9% – 1992-2009 – decrease larger in women under 50 – declined thereafter per year (2009-2010)

resulted in growing disparity

3.3% per year – larger decreases in women younger than 50 – Breast Cancer Death Rates (2009-2010)
——————————————————————
1.9% – 1991_-_2007 – decrease larger in women under 50 – African American women Breast cancer death rates declined annually per year
——————————————————————
AFRICAN AMERICAN WOMEN
——————————————————————
2000-2009 – death among females, rate of decline similar

As result, overall racial disparity narrowed
——————————————————————
2000-2009 death rate declined faster among African Americans females rate of decline than whites

1.5% – 2000-2009 African Americans females rate of decline per year (2013-2014)

1.4% – 2000-2009 whites rate of decline per year (2013-2014 )
——————————————————————
1.4% – 2000-2009 – breast cancer death rates declined more slowly per year in African American women
——————————————————————
1990-2002
African American women benefited less than white women from advances (2005-2008)
——————————————————————
1.1% – breast cancer death rates African Americans (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
1.6% – 1995-2004 – female breast cancer death rates declined per year in African Americans (2007-2008)

1.0% – 1990-2002 female breast cancer death rates declined per year – African Americans (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
early 1990s – Death rates among African Americans for all cancers combined have been decreasing (2011-2012)
——————————————————————
breast cancer death rates have declined more slowly in African American women compared to white women, which has resulted in growing disparity (2011-2012)
——————————————————————
gap much smaller among women
racial difference in overall cancer death rates due largely to cancers of breast and colorectum in women

racial disparity has widened for breast cancer in women (2011-2012)
——————————————————————
early 1980s – disparity in breast cancer death rates between African American and white women began in (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
early 1980s – breast cancer death rates for white and African American women approximately equal (2007)
——————————————————————
30% – early 1980’s-2000 – disparity between African American and white Deaths (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
early 1980s – disparity in breast cancer death rates between African American and white women appeared (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
early 1980s – breast cancer death rates for white and African American women

similar (2011-2014)

equal (2009-2010)

early 1980’s – Breast Cancer Death Rates equal – African American / White (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
1.5% – 1975-1992 – Breast cancer death rates among African American women increased annually (2009-2012)

1.6% – 1975-1991 – African American women Breast cancer death rates increased annually (2007)
——————————————————————
1975-2007 – death rates for all cancers combined continued to be substantially higher among African Americans than whites (2011-2012)
——————————————————————
AFRICAN AMERICAN WOMEN BREAST CANCER DEATH RATE RATIOS per 100,000 women
——————————————————————
35.4 – African American – 1997-2001 – Breast Cancer Death Rate Ratios per 100,000 (2005-2006)

26.4 – White – 1997-2001 – Breast Cancer Death Rate Ratios per 100,000 (2005-2006)

1.3 – African American / White Ratio – 1997-2001 – Breast Cancer Death Rate Ratios per 100,000 (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
HISPANIC / LATINA WOMEN
——————————————————————
2.4% – 1995-2004 female breast cancer death rates declined per year in Hispanics / Latinas (2007-2008)
1.8% – 1990-2002 female breast cancer death rates declined per year in Hispanics / Latinas (2005-2006)
1.4% – breast cancer Death rates Hispanics (2005-2006)

1990-2002
women of other racial and ethnic groups benefited less than white women from advances (2005-2008)
——————————————————————
ASIAN AMERICAN / PACIFIC ISLANDER WOMEN
——————————————————————
1995-2004 female breast cancer death rates remained unchanged among Asian Americans/Pacific Islanders (2007-2008)

1.1% – breast cancer Death rates Asian and Pacific Islanders (2005-2006)

1.0% – 1990-2002 female breast cancer death rates declined per year – Asian Americans / Pacific Islanders (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
1990-2002
women of other racial and ethnic groups benefited less than white women from advances (2005-2008)
——————————————————————
AMERICAN INDIAN / ALASKA NATIVE WOMEN
——————————————————————
1995-2004 female breast cancer death rates remained unchanged among American Indians / Alaska Natives (2007-2008)

1990-2002 female breast cancer death rates did not decline in American Indian / Alaska Natives (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
1990-2002
women of other racial and ethnic groups benefited less than white women from advances (2005-2008)
——————————————————————
breast cancer Death rates American Indian and Alaska Native – constant (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
DEATHS – 2007-2008
——————————————————————
40,460 – Deaths – All ages (2007-2008)
23,510 – Deaths – 65 and older (2007-2008)
16,950 – Deaths – Younger than 65 (2007-2008)
31,320 – Deaths – 55 and older (2007-2008)
9,140 – Deaths – Younger than 55 (2007-2008)
37,630 – Deaths – 45 and older (2007-2008)
2,830 – Deaths – Younger than 45 (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
MORTALITY (DEATH) RATES
——————————————————————
31.0 – Black – Mortality – 1992-1998 – Mortality Rates* by Site, Race, and Ethnicity (2002)

24.3 – White – Mortality – 1992-1998 – Mortality Rates* by Site, Race, and Ethnicity (2002)

14.8 – Hispanic – Mortality – 1992-1998 – Mortality Rates* by Site, Race, and Ethnicity (2002)

12.4 – American Indian / Alaskan Native – Mortality – 1992-1998 – Mortality Rates* by Site, Race, and Ethnicity (2002)

11.0 – Asian / Pacific Islander – Mortality – 1992-1998 – Mortality Rates* by Site, Race, and Ethnicity (2002)
——————————————————————
WHITE WOMEN – MORE LIKELY TO DEVELOP BREAST CANCER
——————————————————————
Combining all age groups, white (non-Hispanic) women more likely to develop breast cancer than black women
——————————————————————
PROBABILITY of DEVELOPING BREAST CANCER in NEXT 10 YEARS (Age)
——————————————————————
20
——————————————————————
20 – 0.05% – 1 in 2,152 – Probability of developing Breast Cancer in next 10 years (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
20 – 0.05% – 1 in 1,985 – 2000-2002 probability of developing breast cancer in next 10 years: † (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
20 – 0.05% – 1 in: 1,837 – probability of developing breast cancer in next 10 years (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
30
——————————————————————
30 – 0.44% – 1 in: 229 (2000-2002) probability of developing breast cancer in next 10 years: † (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
30 – 0.43% – 1 in: 234 – probability of developing breast cancer in next 10 years (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
30 – 0.40% – 1 in 251 – Probability of developing Breast Cancer in next 10 years (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
40
——————————————————————
40 – 1.46% – 1 in: 68 (2000-2002) probability of developing breast cancer in next 10 years: † (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
40 – 1.45% – 1 in 69 – Probability of developing Breast Cancer in next 10 years (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
40 – 1.43% – 1 in: 70 – probability of developing breast cancer in next 10 years (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
50
——————————————————————
50 – 2.78% – 1 in 36 – Probability of developing Breast Cancer in next 10 years (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
50 – 2.73% – 1 in: 37 (2000-2002) probability of developing breast cancer in next 10 years: † (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
50 – 2.51% – 1 in: 40 – probability of developing breast cancer in next 10 years (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
60
——————————————————————
60 – 3.82% – 1 in: 26 (2000-2002) probability of developing breast cancer in next 10 years: † (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
60 – 3.81% – 1 in 26 – Probability of developing Breast Cancer in next 10 years (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
60 – 3.51% – 1 in: 28 – probability of developing breast cancer in next 10 years (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
70
——————————————————————
70 – 4.31% – 1 in 23 – Probability of developing Breast Cancer in next 10 years (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
70 – 4.14% – 1 in: 24 (2000-2002) probability of developing breast cancer in next 10 years: † (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
70 – 3.88% – 1 in: 26 – probability of developing breast cancer in next 10 years (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
LIFETIME RISK
——————————————————————
13.2% – 1 in 8 – 2005-2006 Currently, woman living in US has, or, lifetime risk of developing breast cancer
——————————————————————
13.22% – Lifetime risk – 1 in: 8 – 2000-2002 probability of developing breast cancer in next 10 years: † (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
12.28% – Lifetime risk – 1 in: 8 – probability of developing breast cancer in next 10 years (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
AFRICAN AMERICAN LIFE EXPECTANCY
——————————————————————
2007 – life expectancy lower for African Americans than whites among women

(76.5 vs. 80.6 years) (2011-2012)
——————————————————————
DEVELOPING INVASIVE BREAST CANCER
——————————————————————
1 in 8 – 2013 – chance of developing invasive breast cancer during lifetime
——————————————————————
1 in 8 – 12.3% – Currently, woman living in US has lifetime risk of developing breast cancer (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
about 1 in 11 – 1975
——————————————————————
1 in 11 – 1970s – lifetime risk of being diagnosed with breast cancer (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
result of rounding to nearest whole number, small decrease in lifetime risk (from 1 in 7.47 to 1 in 7.56) led to change in lifetime risk from 1 in 7 previously reported in Breast Cancer Facts & Figures 2003-2004 and Cancer Facts & Figures 2005 to current estimate of 1 in 8

Overall, lifetime risk of being diagnosed with breast cancer gradually increased over past 3 decades (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
INVASIVE BREAST CANCER – by age (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
178,480 – All ages
72,520 – 65 and older
105,960 – Younger than 65
124,300 – 55 and older
54,180 – Younger than 55
162,330 – 45 and older
16,150 – Younger than 45
——————————————————————
INVASIVE BREAST CANCER – by # (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
178,480 – All ages
162,330 – 45 and older
124,300 – 55 and older
105,960 – Younger than 65
72,520 – 65 and older
54,180 – Younger than 55
16,150 – Younger than 45
——————————————————————
INVASIVE BREAST CANCER
——————————————————————
0.3% – 1987-2002 – Incidence Trends: increased per year (2005-2006)
————————————-
—————————–
4% (almost) – 1980-1987 – increased (almost +4% a year) Incidence Trends (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
age 40-49
——————————————————————
Since 1987 – age 40-49 – incidence rates of invasive breast cancer have slightly declined (2005-2006)

3.5% – 40-49 (age) – 1980-1987 – incidence rates of invasive breast cancer increased among women per year – Incidence Trends: Invasive Breast Cancer (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
age 50 and older
——————————————————————
Since 1987 – 50 and older – incidence rates of invasive breast cancer have continued to increase among women, though at much slower rate (2005-2006)

4.2% – 50 and older – incidence rates of invasive breast cancer increased among women per year – Incidence Trends: Invasive Breast Cancer (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
Under 40
——————————————————————
Under 40 – remained essentially constant (2005-2006)

Since 1987 – younger than 40 – relatively little change in incidence rates of invasive breast cancer in women (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
Invasive Breast Cancer
——————————————————————
1975-2000 – Invasive Breast Cancer (2005-2006):

4% – 40 and older – increased 1980-1987 then stabilized (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
1992-2002 – overall incidence rates did not change significantly among whites, African Americans, and Hispanics / Latinas (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
1.3% – Hispanics – increased overall (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
0.9% – Whites – increased overall (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
African Americans – stabilized (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
Asian Americans / Pacific Islanders
——————————————————————
2.1% – 1992-2002 – Asian and Pacific Islanders – overall incidence rates increased overall (2005-2006)

1.5% – 1992-2002 – Asian Americans / Pacific Islanders – overall incidence rates increased per year (2005-2006)

trends in invasive female breast cancer incidence rates (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
American Indian / Alaska Natives
——————————————————————
3.7% – American Indian / Alaska Native – decreased overall (2005-2006)

3.5% – 1992-2002 – American Indian / Alaska Natives – overall incidence rates decreased per year (2005-2006)

trends in invasive female breast cancer incidence rates (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
essentially constant – Incidence Trends
——————————————————————
1973-1980 – essentially constant – Incidence Trends (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
African Americans more likely to be diagnosed at later stage of disease when treatment choices are more limited and less effective (2013-2014)
——————————————————————
MEDIAN AGE of DIAGNOSIS
——————————————————————
62 – median age of diagnosis for -white women
——————————————————————
57 – median age of diagnosis for African American women
——————————————————————
DIAGNOSIS at LOCAL STAGE
——————————————————————
61% – breast cancers diagnosed among white women at local stage (2011-2012)
——————————————————————
51% (Only about half) – of breast cancers diagnosed among African American women are local stage (2011-2014)
——————————————————————
MEDIAN AGE AT TIME OF BREAST CANCER DIAGNOSIS
——————————————————————
61 – 2000_-_2004 median age at time of breast cancer diagnosis (2007-2008)
61 – 1998_-_2002 median age at time of breast cancer diagnosis
——————————————————————
61 – means 50% of women who developed breast cancer were 61 or younger (2007-2008)
50% of women who developed breast cancer were age 61 or younger 1998_-_2002
——————————————————————
61 – 50% were older than 61 when diagnosed (2007-2008)

50% were older than age 61 when diagnosed 1998_-_2002
——————————————————————
2005_-_2009 % / age DIAGNOSED with BREAST CANCER
——————————————————————
61 – median age for breast cancer diagnosis

0.0% – under age 20
1.8% – between 20-34
9.9% – between 35-44
22.5% – between 45-54
24.8% – between 55-64
20.2% – between 65-74
15.1% – between 75-84
5.7% – 85+
——————————————————————
2005_-_2009 % / age DIAGNOSED with BREAST CANCER by % (SEER, 2012)
——————————————————————
24.8% – between 55-64
22.5% – between 45-54
20.2% – between 65-74
15.1% – between 75-84
9.9% – between 35-44
5.7% – 85+
1.8% – between 20-34
0.0% – under age 20
——————————————————————
IN SITU BREAST CANCER – by age (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
62,030 – All ages
21,510 – 65 and older
40,520 – Younger than 65
37,110 – 55 and older
24,920 – Younger than 55
54,390 – 45 and older
7,640 – Younger than 45
——————————————————————
IN SITU BREAST CANCER – by # (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
62,030 – All ages
54,390 – 45 and older
40,520 – Younger than 65
37,110 – 55 and older
24,920 – Younger than 55
21,510 – 65 and older
7,640 – Younger than 45
——————————————————————
NEW CASES – IN SITU BREAST CANCER
——————————————————————
increase observed in all age groups, although greatest in women 50 and older (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
Since 2000 – incidence rates of in situ breast cancer leveled off among women 50 and older (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
Since 2000 – incidence rates of in situ breast cancer have continued to increase in younger women (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
80% – 2000-2004 – Most in situ breast cancers are ductal carcinoma (DCIS), which accounted for about 80% of in situ breast cancers diagnosed (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
2000-2004 – Lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS) less common than DCIS, accounting for about 10% of female in situ breast cancers diagnosed (2007-2008)

Similar to DCIS, overall incidence rate of LCIS increased more rapidly than incidence of invasive breast cancer (2007-2008)

increase limited to women older than age 40 and largely to postmenopausal women (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
1998-2002 accounting for female in situ breast cancers diagnosed (2005-2006):

12% – Lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS) less common than DCIS

Similar to DCIS, overall incidence rate of LCIS increased more rapidly than incidence of invasive breast cancer

increase limited to women older than 40 and largely to postmenopausal women
——————————————————————
1980s and 1990s – Incidence rates of in situ breast cancer increased rapidly (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
New cancer cases in women expected to be newly diagnosed among African Americans:
——————————————————————
2013 – 82,080 (About)
——————————————————————
19% – breast cancer in women (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
2002 – Breast cancer ranks 2nd among cancer deaths in women
——————————————————————
2002-2003: 2nd leading cause of death
——————————————————————
African American women expected to die from cancer:
——————————————————————
African Americans have the highest death rate and shortest survival of any racial and ethnic group in the US for most cancers
(2007-2014)
African Americans have the highest mortality rate of any racial and ethnic group in the US for most cancers
(2005-2006)
——————————————————————
higher death rate in African
American women compared to white women occurs despite lower cancer incidence rate (2013-2014)
——————————————————————
African American women have higher death rates overall and for breast and several other cancer sites (2013-2014)
——————————————————————
15% – 2009 – death rate for all cancers combined continued to be higher in African American women than in white women (2013-2014)
——————————————————————
racial difference in overall cancer death rates is due largely to cancers of the breast and colorectum in women (2013-2014)
——————————————————————
overall racial disparity in cancer death rates decreasing (2013-2014)
——————————————————————
16% – 2007 – death rate for all cancers combined higher in African American women than white women (2011-2012)
——————————————————————
37% – by 2002 – death rates higher in African Americans than white women (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
since early 1990s – death rates among African Americans for all cancers combined have been decreasing (2013-2014)
——————————————————————
30% – early 1980’s–2000 – Deaths disparity between African American and white (2005–2006)
——————————————————————
1975-2009 – Despite declines, death rates for all cancers combined continued to be higher among African Americans than whites (2013-2014)
——————————————————————
1992-2014 – Breast cancer death rates among African American women declined
——————————————————————
1.4% per year – 2000-2009 – breast cancer death rates declined more slowly in African American women
——————————————————————
2.1% per year – 2000-2009 – breast cancer death rates declined white women
——————————————————————
early 1980s – breast cancer death rates for white and African American women similar
——————————————————————
1975-1992 – Breast cancer death rates among African American women increased
resulted in growing disparity
——————————————————————
through 1998 – breast cancer incidence rates among young white women continued to increase more slowly (2002)
——————————————————————
1980s – 4.5% per year increase (2002)
——————————————————————
As result, overall racial disparity narrowed (2013-2014)
——————————————————————
1992-1998 – mortality rates declined significantly – largest decreases in younger women, both white and black (2002)
——————————————————————
1992-1998 – Incidence and Mortality Rates* by Site, Race, and Ethnicity (2002)
——————————————————————
Incidence
——————————————————————
115.5 – White
101.5 – Black
78.1 – Asian / Pacific Islander
50.5 – American Indian / Alaskan Native
68.5 – Hispanic
——————————————————————
Mortality
——————————————————————
31.0 – Black
24.3 – White
14.8 – Hispanic
12.4 – American Indian / Alaskan Native
11.0 – Asian / Pacific Islander
——————————————————————
Cancer Facts & Figures for African Americans 2005-2006
——————————————————————
1995-2000 (2001) – Diagnosed
Female breast (2005-2006):
——————————————————————
Localized
——————————————————————
64% – White (2005-2006)
53% – African American (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
Regional
——————————————————————
35% – African American (2005-2006)
28% – White (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
Distant
——————————————————————
9% – African American (2005-2006)
5% – White (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
Unstaged
——————————————————————
3% – African American (2005-2006)
2% – White (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
2005-2006 – Cancer Incidence Rates Ratios per 100,000 (1975-2001)
——————————————————————
1997-2001 – Breast (2005-2006)
143.2 – White (2005-2006)
118.6 – African American (2005-2006)
0.8 – African American / White Ratio (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
2005-2006 – Cancer Death Rate Ratios per 100,000
——————————————————————
1997-2001 – Breast (2005-2006)
35.4 – African American (2005-2006)
26.4 – White (2005-2006)
1.3 – African American / White Ratio (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
Most common cancer among African American Women (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
17% lower incidence rate in African American than White (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
under 40 – higher incidence rate in African American than White (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
25 years incidence:
——————————————————————
1999-2001 – leveling off (2005-2006)
1986-1999 – less rapid increase (2005-2006)
1978-1986 – rapid increase (2005-2006)
1975-1978 – stable (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
Breast Cancer Death Rates Increased (2005-2006):
——————————————————————
1975-1991 – + 1.6% – annually (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
1991 – decided annually: particularly in women younger than 50 (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
Breast Cancer Death Rates (2005-2006):
——————————————————————
early 1980’s – equal – African American / White (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
2000 – 32% – higher African American (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
Death rate higher in African American even though had lower incidence rates (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
Rate per 100,000
——————————————————————
White
African American
Asian or Pacific Islander
Hispanic
American Indian or Alaska Native
——————————————————————
1996-2000 – Incidences:

140.8 – White
121.7 – African American
97.2 – Asian or Pacific Islander
89.8 – Hispanic
58 – American Indian or Alaska Native
——————————————————————
1996-2000 – Deaths

35.9 – African American
27.2 – White
17.9 – Hispanic
14.9 – American Indian or Alaska Native
12.5 – Asian or Pacific Islander
——————————————————————
Estimated New In Situ Cases:
——————————————————————
2003_-_100 – < 30
2005 – 1,600 – Under 40
2003 – 2,100 – 30-39
2005 – 56,890 – 40 and older
2005 – 13,760 – Under 50
2003 -12,600 – 40-49
2005 – 44,730 – 50 and older
2005 – 37,040 – Under 65
2003 – 15,700 – 50-59
2005 – 21,450 – 65 and older
2003 – 11,500 – 60-69
2003 – 10,100 – 70-79
2003 – 3,500 – 80 +
2005 – 58,490 – All ages
TOTAL
2003 – 55,700
——————————————————————
2003_-_100 – 0.2%
2003 – 2,100 – 3.8%
2003 – 12,600 – 22.6%
2003 – 15,700 – 28.2%
2003 – 11,500 – 20.6%
2003 – 10,100 – 18.1%
2003 – 3,500 – 16.3
TOTAL
2003 – 100.0%
——————————————————————
Estimated New Invasive Cases:
——————————————————————
2003 – 1,000 – < 30
2005 – 9,510 – Under 40
2003 – 10,500 – 30-39
2005_-_201,730 – 40 and older
2005 – 45,780 – Under 50
2003 – 35,500 – 40-49
2005_-_165,460 – 50 and older
2005_-_123,070 – Under 65
2003 – 48,700 – 50-59
2005 – 88,170 – 65 and older
2003 – 43,100 – 60-69
2003 – 45,600 – 70-79
2003 – 27,000 – 80 +
2005_-_211,240 – All ages
TOTAL
2003 – 55,700 –
——————————————————————
2003 – 1,000 – 0.5%
2003 – 10,500 – 5.0%
2003 – 35,500 – 16.8%
2003 – 48,700 – 23.0%
2003 – 43,100 – 20.4%
2003 – 45,600 – 21.6%
2003 – 27,000 – 12.8%
TOTAL
2003 – 100.00%
——————————————————————
Deaths:
——————————————————————
2003_-_100 – < 30
2005 – 1,110 – Under 40
2003 – 1,300 – 30-39
2005 – 39,300 – 40 and older
2005 – 5,590 – Under 50
2003 – 4,300 – 40-49
2005 – 34,820 – 50 and older
2005 – 17,470 – Under 65
2003 – 7,000 – 50-59
2005 – 22,940 – 65 and older
2003 – 7,400 – 60-69
2003 – 9,500 – 70-79
2003 – 10,100 – 80 +
2005 – 40,410 – All ages
TOTAL
2003 – 39,800
——————————————————————
2003_-_100 – 0.3%
2003 – 1,300 – 3.3%
2003 – 4,300 – 10.8%
2003 – 7,000 – 17.6 %
2003 – 7,400 – 18.6%
2003 – 9,500 – 23.9%
2003 – 10,100 – 25.4%
TOTAL
2003 – 100.0
——————————————————————
1990 – Increase since predominantly due to women 50 and older
——————————————————————
1998-2002 accounting for female in situ breast cancers diagnosed (2005-2006):
——————————————————————
12% – Lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS) less common than DCIS

Similar to DCIS, overall incidence rate of LCIS increased more rapidly than incidence of invasive breast cancer

increase limited to women older than 40 and largely to postmenopausal women
——————————————————————
1990-2001 (2005-2006):
——————————————————————
2.3% – decrease
largest decrease in < 50
——————————————————————
1998-2002 women aged 40 and older (2005-2006):
——————————————————————
95% – new cases
97% – breast cancer deaths
——————————————————————
1996-2000 Women 40 and older (2005-2006):
——————————————————————
94% – New Cases
96% – Deaths
——————————————————————
0.3% per year – Incidence rates declined slightly among white females (2013-2014)
——————————————————————
1996-2002 (2005-2006):
——————————————————————
20-24 – 1.3 per 100,000 lowest incidence rate – 1998-2002 (2005-2006)

20-24 – 1.4 per 100,000 lowest incidence rate – 1996-2000 (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
75-79 – 496.6 per 100,000 highest incidence rate – 1998-2002 (2005-2006)

75-79 – 499.0 per 100,000 highest incidence rate – 1996-2000 (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
2005-2006
•
White women higher incidence of breast cancer than African American women after 35

African American women slightly higher incidence rate before 35

African American women more likely to die from breast cancer at every age
——————————————————————
2005

White – higher incidence rate than African American women after 40

African American – slightly higher incidence rate before 40

African American women – more likely to die from at any age
——————————————————————
2005-2006 incidence and death rates from breast cancer lower among women of other racial and ethnic groups than white and African American women
——————————————————————
2000-2009 – stable among African American females (2013-2014)
——————————————————————
1975-1980 essentially constant (2005-2006)
1980-1987 + almost 4% per year (2005-2006)
1987-2002 + 0.3% per year (2005-2006)
•
Incidence Trends
Invasive Breast Cancer (2005-2006):

1973-1980 – essentially constant (2005-2006)
1980-1987 – + almost 4% year (2005-2006)
1987-2000 – 0.4% year (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
1980-1987 incidence rates of invasive breast cancer increased among women (2005-2006):
——————————————————————
40-49 (3.5% per year) (2005-2006)
50 and older (4.2% per year) (2005-2006)
Since 1987
50 and older – rates have continued to increase among women , though at much slower rate (2005-2006)

40-49 -rates have slightly declined (2005-2006)

younger than 40 – relatively little change in incidence rates of invasive breast cancer in women (2005-2006)

1975-2000 – Invasive Breast Cancer (2005-2006):

4% – 40 and older increased 1980 – 1987 then stabilized (2005-2006)

Under 40 – remained essentially constant (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
2005-2006 trends in invasive female breast cancer incidence rates:
——————————————————————
1992-2002
(1.5% per year) – overall incidence rates increased in Asian Americans / Pacific Islanders (2005-2006)

(3.5% per year) – decreased in American Indian/Alaska Natives (2005-2006)

did not change significantly among whites, African Americans, and Hispanics/Latinas (2005-2006)

1992-2000 – Invasive (2005-2006):

2.1% – Asian and Pacific Islanders – increased overall (2005-2006)
1.3% – Hispanics – increased overall (2005-2006)
0.9% – Whites – increased overall (2005-2006)
3.7% – American Indian and Alaska Native – decreased overall (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
African Americans – stabilized (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
since 1990 – death rate from breast cancer in women decreased (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
1975-1990
0.4% – death rate for all races combined increased annually (2005-2006)
•
1990-2002
2.3% – rate decreased annually
percentage of decline larger among younger age groups (2005-2006)

1990-2002
3.3% – death rates decreased per year among women younger than 50 (2005-2006)

2.0% – per year among women 50 and older (2005-2006)

African American women and women of other racial and ethnic groups have benefited less than white women from advances (2005-2006)

1990-2002 female breast cancer death rates declined (2005-2006):

2.4% – per year – whites (2005-2006)
1.8% – per year – Hispanics/Latinas (2005-2006)
1.0% – per year – African Americans and Asian Americans/Pacific Islanders (2005-2006)

did not decline in American Indian/ Alaska Natives (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
life expectancy lower for African Americans than whites among women (77.2 vs. 80.9 years) (2013-2014)
——————————————————————
As result, overall racial disparity narrowed (2013-2014)
——————————————————————
striking divergence in long-term mortality trends between African American and white females (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
early 1980s – disparity in breast cancer death rates between African American and white women appeared (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
1975-1990 – Death (2005-2006):
0.4% – increased annually (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
1990-2000
2.3% – decreased annually (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
1991-2000
3.7% – under 50 decreased (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
1990-2000
2.0% – 50 and older decreased (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
1992-2000 – Death (2005-2006):
——————————————————————
2.6% – Whites (2005-2006)
1.4% – Hispanics (2005-2006)
1.1% – African Americans (2005-2006)
1.1% – Asian and Pacific Islanders (2005-2006)
American Indian and Alaska Native – constant (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
Probability of developing Breast Cancer in next 10 years:
——————————————————————
Age
——————————————————————
20 – 0.05% – 1 in 2,152 (2005-2006)
20 – 0.05% – 1 in 1,985 – 2000-2002 (2005-2006)†
——————————————————————
30 – 0.40% – 1 in 251 (2005-2006)
30 – 0.44% – 1 in: 229 – 2000-2002 (2005-2006)†
——————————————————————
40 – 1.45% – 1 in 69 (2005-2006)
40 – 1.46% – 1 in: 68 – 2000-2002 (2005-2006)†
——————————————————————
50 – 2.78% – 1 in 36 (2005-2006)
50 – 2.73% – 1 in: 37 – 2000-2002 (2005-2006)†
——————————————————————
60 – 3.81% – 1 in 26 (2005-2006)
60 – 3.82% – 1 in: 26 – 2000-2002 (2005-2006)†
——————————————————————
70 – 4.31% – 1 in 23 (2005-2006)
70 – 4.14% – 1 in: 24 – 2000-2002 (2005-2006)†
——————————————————————
Lifetime Probability (%) of Developing or Dying from Invasive Cancers by Race and Sex
——————————————————————
Developing

12.73 (1 in 8) – White (%) 2007-2009 (2013-2014)

10.87 (1 in 9) – African American (%) 2007-2009 (2013-2014)

Dying

3.25 (1 in 31) – African American (%) 2007-2009 (2013-2014)

2.73 (1 in 37) – White (%) 2007-2009 (2013-2014)

2005-2006 Currently, woman living in US has 13.2%, or 1 in 8, lifetime risk of developing breast cancer (2013-2014)

result of rounding to nearest whole number, small decrease in lifetime risk (from 1 in 7.47 to 1 in 7.56) led to change in lifetime risk from 1 in 7 previously reported in Breast Cancer Facts & Figures 2003-2004 and Cancer Facts & Figures 2005 to current estimate of 1 in 8

2005-2006: Overall, lifetime risk of being diagnosed with breast cancer gradually increased over past 3 decades (2013-2014)
——————————————————————
13.22% – Lifetime risk – 1 in: 8
Comparison of Cancer Incidence Rates between African Americans and Whites
——————————————————————
123.2 – White Rate* 2005-2009 (2013-2014)
121.7 – White Rate* 2003-2007 (2011-2012)
130.6 – White Rate* 2001-2005 +
——————————————————————
118.1 – African American Rate* 2005-2009 (2013-2014)
114.7 – African American Rate* 2003-2007 (2011-2012)
117.6 – African American Rate* 2001-2005 +
——————————————————————
-5.1 – Difference† 2005-2009 (2013-2014)
-7.0 – Absolute Difference† 2003-2007 (2011-2012)
-13.1 – Absolute Difference† 2001-2005 +
——————————————————————
0.96 – Rate Ratio‡ 2005-2009 (2013-2014)
0.94 – Rate Ratio‡ 2003-2007 (2011-2012)
0.90 – Rate Ratio‡ 2001-2005 +

*Rates per 100,000 age adjusted to 2000 US standard population

†Difference is rate in African Americans minus rate in whites

†Absolute difference is rate in African Americans minus rate in whites

‡Rate ratio is unrounded rate in African Americans divided by unrounded rate in whites

‡Rate ratio is rate in African Americans divided by rate in whites based on 2 decimal places

+ Source: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program, 17 SEER Registries 2000-2005, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, 2008
——————————————————————
Comparison of Cancer Death Rates between African Americans and Whites
——————————————————————
31.6 – African American Rate* 2005-2009
32.4 – African American Rate* 2003-2007 (2011-2012)
33.5 – African American Rate* 2001-2005 +
——————————————————————
22.4 – White Rate* 2005-2009
23.4 – White Rate* 2003-2007 (2011-2012)
24.4 – White Rate* 2001-2005 +
——————————————————————
9.2 – Difference† 2005-2009
9.0 – Absolute Difference† 2003-2007 (2011-2012)
9.1 – Absolute Difference† 2001-2005 +
——————————————————————
1.41 – Rate Ratio‡ 2005-2009
1.39 – Rate Ratio‡ 2003-2007 (2011-2012)
1.37 – Rate Ratio‡ 2001-2005 +

*Rates per 100,000 and age adjusted to 2000 US standard population

†Difference is rate in African Americans minus rate in whites

†Absolute difference is rate in African Americans minus rate in whites

‡Rate ratio is unrounded rate in African Americans divided by unrounded rate in whites

‡Rate ratio is rate in African Americans divided by rate in whites based on 2 decimal places

+ Source: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program, 17 SEER Registries 2000-2005, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, 2008
——————————————————————
Stage Distribution for Selected Cancers in African Americans and Whites

Stage Distribution African Americans and Whites
——————————————————————
Localized
——————————————————————
61% – White 2002-2008
61% – White 1999-2006
62% – White 1996-2004 +
——————————————————————
51% – African American 2002-2008
51% – African American 1999-2006
51% – African American 1996-2004 +
——————————————————————
Regional

38% – African American 2002-2008
39% – African American 1999-2006
37% – African American 1996-2004 +
——————————————————————
32% – White 2002-2008
32% – White 1999-2006
31% – White 1996-2004 +
——————————————————————
Distant
——————————————————————
8% – African American 2002-2008
8% – African American 1999-2006
10% – African American 1996-2004 +
——————————————————————
5% – White 2002-2008
5% – White 1999-2006
6% – White 1996-2004 +
——————————————————————
Unstaged
——————————————————————
3% – African American 2002-2008
3% – African American 1999-2006
3% – African American 1996-2004 +
——————————————————————
2% – White 2002-2008
2% – White 1999-2006
2% – White 1996-2004 +
——————————————————————
+ Source:
Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program, 17 SEER Registries, 1973-2005, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, 2008
——————————————————————
Probability of Developing Invasive Cancers Over Selected Age Intervals among African Americans by Sex +

Probability of Developing Invasive Cancers:
——————————————————————
Birth to 39 (%):
——————————————————————
0.53 (1 in 189) 2003-2005 * +
0.44 (1 in 229) 1998–2000 (2004)
0.44 (1 in 228) 1997–1999 (2003)
0.44 (1 in 229) 1996–1997 (2002)
——————————————————————
40 to 59(%):
——————————————————————
3.56 (1 in 28) – 40 to 59(%) 2003-2005 * +
4.14 (1 in 24) 1998–2000 (2004)
4.17 (1 in 24) 1997–1999 (2003)
4.17 (1 in 24) 1996–1997 (2002)

2.96 (1 in 34) – 60 to 69 (%) 2003-2005 * +
——————————————————————
60 to 79 (%):
——————————————————————
7.53 (1 in 13) 1998–2000 (2004)
7.14 (1 in 14) 1997–1999 (2003)
7.14 (1 in 14) 1996–1997 (2002)

5.44 (1 in 18) – 70 and Older (%) 2003-2005 * +
——————————————————————
Birth to Death (%)
——————————————————————
9.91 (1 in 10) – Birth to Death (%) 2003-2005 * +
13.36 (1 in 7) 1998–2000 (2004)
13.3 (1 in 8) 1997–1999 (2003)
12.5 (1 in 8) 1996–1997 (2002)

*For people free of cancer at beginning of age interval

+ Source:
DevCan:
Probability of Developing or Dying of Cancer Software, Version 6.3.0. Statistical Research and Applications Branch, National Cancer Institute, 2008
——————————————————————
2005-2006 Currently, woman living in US has 13.2%, or 1 in 8, lifetime risk of developing breast cancer (2013-2014)

result of rounding to nearest whole number, small decrease in lifetime risk (from 1 in 7.47 to 1 in 7.56) led to change in lifetime risk from 1 in 7 previously reported in Breast Cancer Facts & Figures 2003-2004 and Cancer Facts & Figures 2005 to current estimate of 1 in 8
——————————————————————
2005-2006: Overall, lifetime risk of being diagnosed with breast cancer gradually increased over past 3 decades (2013-2014)
——————————————————————
5-YEAR SURVIVAL RATE – ALL
——————————————————————
Survival after diagnosis of breast cancer continues to decline after 5 years (2009-2010)

Survival after diagnosis of breast cancer continues to decline beyond 5 years (2006)
——————————————————————
5-YEAR RELATIVE SURVIVAL LOWER
——————————————————————
5-year relative survival lower among women with more advanced stage at diagnosis (2007-2008)

5-year relative survival lower among women with more advanced stage of disease at diagnosis (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
2005-2006 African American women with breast cancer less likely than white women to survive 5 years:
——————————————————————
90% – white
76% – African American
——————————————————————
Likely to survive 5 years (2005-2006):
——————————————————————
88% – White
74% – African American
——————————————————————
5-YEAR SURVIVAL RATE – ALL STAGES – COMBINED
——————————————————————
89% – survival rate at 5 years for all stages combined (2009-2010)
——————————————————————
88% – all stages combined – 5 year
——————————————————————
77% – all stages combined – 10 year
——————————————————————
5-YEAR RELATIVE SURVIVAL RATE for ALL CANCERS COMBINED
——————————————————————
63% – 2004
62% – 2002-2003
——————————————————————
5-year Relative Survival Rates* for Cancers by Race and Stage

Five-year Relative Survival Rates* for Cancers by Race and Stage at Diagnosis

Five-Year Relative Survival Rates

5-year Relative Survival Rates (1995-2000 (2001) diagnosed) SEER 1975–2001 (2004)
——————————————————————
Localized
——————————————————————
99% – White 2002-2008 (2013-2014)
61% – White 1999-2006 (2011-2012)
99% – White 1996-2004 +
98% – White 1995–2000 (2005–2006)
——————————————————————
93% – African American 2002-2008 (2013-2014)
51% – African American 1999-2006 (2011-2012)
93% – African American 1996-2004 +
91% – African American 1995–2000 (2005–2006)
——————————————————————
Regional
——————————————————————
85% – White 2002-2008 (2013-2014)
32% – White 1999-2006 (2011-2012)
85% – White 1996-2004 +
82% – White 1995–2000 (2005–2006)
——————————————————————
73% – African American 2002-2008 (2013-2014)
39% – African American 1999-2006 (2011-2012)
72% – African American 1996-2004 +
68% – African American 1995–2000 (2005–2006)
——————————————————————
Distant
——————————————————————
25% – White 2002-2008 (2013-2014)
5% – White 1999-2006 (2011-2012)
29% – White 1996-2004 +
27% – White 1995–2000 (2005–2006)
——————————————————————
15% – African American 2002-2008 (2013-2014)
8% – African American 1999-2006 (2011-2012)
17% – African American 1996-2004 +
15% – African American 1995–2000 (2005–2006)
——————————————————————
All Stages
——————————————————————
90% – White 2002-2008 (2013-2014)
2% – White 1999-2006 (2011-2012)
90% – White 1996-2004 +
56% – White 1995–2000
(2005–2006)
——————————————————————
78% – African American 2002-2008 (2013-2014)
3% – African American 1999-2006 (2011-2012)
77% – African American 1996-2004 +
50% – African American 1995–2000 (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
*Survival rates based on patients diagnosed 2002-2008 followed through 2009

*Survival rates based on patients diagnosed 1999-2006 followed through 2007

Survival rates based on patients diagnosed 1996 – 2004 followed through 2005 +

Local:
invasive cancer confined entirely to organ of origin

Regional:

malignant cancer either

1) extended beyond limits of organ of origin directly into surrounding organs or tissues

2) involves regional lymph nodes by way of lymphatic system

3) both regional extension and involvement of regional lymph nodes

Distant:

malignant cancer spread to parts of body remote from primary tumor either by direct extension or by discontinuous metastasis to distant organs, tissues, or via lymphatic system to distant lymph nodes

+ Source:
Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program, 17 SEER Registries, 1973-2005, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, 2008
——————————————————————
Considering all races, 5-year relative survival:

98% – localized disease
81% – regional disease
26% – distant-stage disease

Larger tumor size at diagnosis associated with decreased survival
among women of all races with regional disease, 5-year relative survival:

92% – tumors less than or equal to 2.0 cm
77% – tumors 2.1-5.0 cm
65% – tumors greater than 5.0 cm
——————————————————————
OVERALL 5-YEAR CANCER SURVIVAL RATE (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
55% – 1995-2000 (2005-2006)
27% – 1960-1963 (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
5-YEAR RELATIVE SURVIVAL RATES
——————————————————————
89% – 5 year relative survival rates for women diagnosed with breast cancer after diagnosis (2007-2008)
88% – 5 year relative survival rates for women diagnosed with breast cancer after diagnosis (2005-2006)
87% – 5 year Breast Cancer Survival Rates after Diagnosis (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
age 75 + – 5 year relative survival rate among women diagnosed with breast cancer
——————————————————————
88% – 75 and older (2005-2006)
86% – 75 and over (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
age 65 + – 5 year relative survival rate among women diagnosed with breast cancer
——————————————————————
89% – 65-74 (2005-2006)
88% – 65 and over (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
5-year relative survival rate among women diagnosed with breast cancer
——————————————————————
88% – 55-64 (2005-2006)
89% – 40-74 (2005-2006)
87% – 45-54 (2005-2006)
83% – 45 (less than) (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
40 and older – 5-year relative survival rate
——————————————————————
89% – 40 and older – 5-year relative survival rate slightly lower among women diagnosed with breast cancer (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
younger than 40 – 5-year relative survival rate
——————————————————————
82% – before 40 – slightly lower among women diagnosed with breast cancer (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
82% – younger than 40 – slightly lower among women diagnosed with breast cancer before age 40 – may be due to tumors in age group being more aggressive (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
All – Trends in 5-Year Relative Survival Rates* by Race and Year of Diagnosis
——————————————————————
86% – 1992-1997 (2002) – 1974-1997
78% – 1983-1985 (2002) – 1974-1997
75% – 1974-1976 (2002) – 1974-1997
——————————————————————
WHITE WOMEN
——————————————————————
69% – white women (2013-2014)
——————————————————————
62% – white women (2007)
——————————————————————
90% – 1999-2006 white women (2011-2012)
——————————————————————
90% – 1996-2004 white women – 5-year relative survival rate for breast cancer diagnosed (2009-2010)
——————————————————————
90% – white women with breast cancer to survive 5 years (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
5-year survival greater among white women (2007)
——————————————————————
90% – 2002-2008 – overall 5-year relative survival rate for breast cancer diagnosed among white women
——————————————————————
88% – White women – Likely to survive 5 years (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
81% – White women – 5 year survivors: relative 5 year survival rate (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
62% – 1996-2004 – white women – 5-year relative survival rate for breast cancer diagnosed (2009-2010)
——————————————————————
90% – 1996-2002 – whites (2007) – 1974-1997 – Trends in 5-Year Relative Survival Rates* by Race and Year of Diagnosis (2002)
——————————————————————
90% – 1996-2002 – White – 5-Year Relative Survival – Breast 2007 (2007-2008) +
——————————————————————
89% – 1995-2000 – White – 5-year Relative Survival (1995-2000 (2001) Diagnosis) SEER 1975-2001 (2004) (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
87% – 1992-1997 – White – 1974-1997 – Trends in 5-Year Relative Survival Rates* by Race and Year of Diagnosis (2002)
——————————————————————
79% – 1983-1985 – White – 1974-1997 – Trends in 5-Year Relative Survival Rates* by Race and Year of Diagnosis (2002)
——————————————————————
75% – 1974-1976 – White – 1974-1997 – Trends in 5-Year Relative Survival Rates* by Race and Year of Diagnosis (2002)
——————————————————————
AFRICAN AMERICAN WOMEN
——————————————————————
78% – black women still living 5 years after getting disease (SEER, 2012)
——————————————————————
78% – 1999-2006 – 5-year relative survival rate for breast cancer diagnosed among African American women Survival and Stage at Distribution (2011-2012)
——————————————————————
76% – African American – 5 year survivors relative 5 year survival rate (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
74% – African American – Likely to survive 5 years (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
60% – African Americans – continue to have lower 5-year survival than whites overall and for each stage of diagnosis for most cancer sites (2013-2014)

African Americans continue to be less likely than whites to survive 5 years at each stage of diagnosis for most cancer sites (2009-2010)

Within each stage, 5-year survival also lower among African American women (2009-2010)

78% – 2002-2008 – overall 5-year relative survival rate for breast cancer diagnosed among African American women

77% – African American women with breast cancer less likely than white women to survive 5 years (2007-2008)
76% – African American women with breast cancer less likely than white women to survive 5 years 2005-2006

60% – 2002-2008 – overall 5-year relative survival rate among African Americans improved (2013-2014)

59% – 1999-2006 – African Americans continue to be less likely than whites to survive 5 years at each stage of diagnosis for most cancer sites (2011-2012)

58% – 1996-2004 – overall 5-year relative survival rate among African Americans improved (2009-2010)

77% – 1996-2002 – 5-Year Relative Survival – Breast – African American 2007 (2007-2008) +
77% – 1996-2002 – African American women (2007) – 1974-1997 – Trends in 5-Year Relative Survival Rates* by Race and Year of Diagnosis (2002)

72% – 1992-1997 – Black – 1974-1997 – Trends in 5-Year Relative Survival Rates* by Race and Year of Diagnosis (2002)

63% – 1983-1985 – Black – 1974-1997 – Trends in 5-Year Relative Survival Rates* by Race and Year of Diagnosis (2002)

63% – 1974-1976 – Black – 1974-1997 – Trends in 5-Year Relative Survival Rates* by Race and Year of Diagnosis (2002)

27% – 1960-1963 – overall 5-year relative survival rate among African Americans improved (2009-2014)
——————————————————————
1996-2002 – 5-Year Relative Survival – Breast 2007 – (Based on cancer patients diagnosed 1996-2002 followed through 2003) (2007-2008) +

(Source: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program, 17 SEER Registries, 1975-2003, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, 2006) (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
relative survival rates for women diagnosed with breast cancer (2005-2006):
•
88% – 5 years after diagnosis (2005-2006)
80% – 10 years (2005-2006)
71% – 15 years (2005-2006)
63% – 20 years (2005-2006)
•
Breast Cancer Survival Rates after Diagnosis:
•
87% – 5 years (2005-2006)
77% – 10 years (2005-2006)
63% – 15 years (2005-2006)
52% – 20 years (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
2005-2006 – 5-year relative survival rate slightly lower among women diagnosed with breast cancer before age 40
•
may be due to tumors in age group being more aggressive and less responsive to hormonal therapy:
•
82% – younger than 40 (2005-2006)
89% – 40 – 74 (2005-2006)
88% – 75 and older (2005-2006)
•
5 year relative survival rate (2005-2006):
•
83% – < 45
87% – 45 – 54
88% – 55 – 64
89% – 65 – 74
88% – 65 and over
86% – 75 and over
——————————————————————
5 year survivors
relative 5 year survival rate (2005-2006):
•
81% – White
76% – African American
——————————————————————
10 year survivors after diagnosis
relative 5 year survival rate (2005-2006):
——————————————————————
87% – White
85% – African American
——————————————————————
LOCALIZED CANCER INCIDENCE RATES RATIOS per 100,000 (1975-2001) – 1995-2000 (2001) – Diagnosed Female breast (2005-2006): Localized – Of all breast cancers diagnosed 2005-2006
——————————————————————
143.2 – White
118.6 – African American

0.8 – African American / White Ratio
——————————————————————
2005-2006
1995-2000 – 5-year Relative Survival (1995-2000 (2001) Diagnosis) SEER 1975-2001 (2004)
89% – White (2005-2006)
75% – African American (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
2005-2006
1995-2000 – 5-year Relative Survival Rates (1995-2000 (2001) diagnosed) SEER 1975-2001 (2004)
Female breast
——————————————————————
Localized
——————————————————————
98% – White (2005-2006)
91% – African American (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
Regional
——————————————————————
82% – White (2005-2006)
68% – African American (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
Distant
——————————————————————
27% – White (2005-2006)
15% – African American (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
Unstaged
——————————————————————
56% – White (2005-2006)
50% – African American (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
LOCALIZED 5-YEAR RELATIVE SURVIVAL RATES (1995-2000 (2001) diagnosed) SEER 1975-2001 (2004) Female breast (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
98% – 1995-2000 – White
91% – 1995-2000 – African American
——————————————————————
LOCALIZED
——————————————————————
98% – 2010 – 5-year relative survival for localized breast cancer (malignant cancer that has not spread to lymph nodes or other locations outside breast) has increased (2009-2010)

98% – localized disease: 5-year relative survival – Considering all races (2007-2008)

98% – 2006 – 5-year relative survival for localized breast cancer (cancer not spread to lymph nodes or other locations outside breast) increased

98% – localized disease – 2005-2006 5-year relative survival lower among women with more advanced stage of disease at diagnosis: Considering all races

98% – 2005 – 5 year relative survival for localized

97% – 2004 – 5-year relative survival for localized breast cancer (cancer not spread to lymph nodes or other locations outside breast) increased

96% – 2002 – 5-year relative survival for localized breast cancer (cancer not spread to lymph nodes or other locations outside breast) increased

99% – 1996-2002 White – localized (2007-2008) *

94% – 1996-2002 African American – localized (2007-2008) *

80% – 1950s – 5-year relative survival for localized breast cancer (malignant cancer that has not spread to lymph nodes or other locations outside breast) has increased (2009-2010)

80% – 1950s – 5-year relative survival for localized breast cancer (cancer not spread to lymph nodes or other locations outside breast) increased (2006)

72% – 1940s – 5-year relative survival rate for localized breast cancer (cancer not spread to lymph nodes or other locations outside breast) increased (2002)
——————————————————————
5-year relative survival rate for breast cancer diagnosed at local stage
——————————————————————
77% – 1996-2004 – African American women – 5-year relative survival rate for breast cancer diagnosed at local stage (2009-2010)
——————————————————————
LOCALIZED
——————————————————————
62% – 1996-2002 White – Localized – Stage Distribution – Female breast (2007-2008)

64% – White – Localized (2005–2006)

64% – 1995-2000 (2001) – White: Diagnosed Female breast (2005-2006): Localized – Of all breast cancers diagnosed

5% – 1995-2000 (2001) – White: Diagnosed Female breast (2005-2006): Localized – Of all breast cancers diagnosed

52% – 1996-2002 African American – Localized – Stage Distribution – Female breast (2007-2008)

53% – African American – Localized (2005–2006)

53% – 1995-2000 (2001) – African American: Diagnosed Female breast (2005-2006): Localized – Of all breast cancers diagnosed
——————————————————————
REGIONAL 5-YEAR RELATIVE SURVIVAL RATES (1995-2000 (2001) diagnosed) SEER 1975-2001 (2004) Female breast (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
82% – 1995-2000 – White
68% – 1995-2000 – African American
——————————————————————
REGIONALLY
——————————————————————
84% – cancer spread regionally, current 5-year survival (2009-2010)

84% – regional disease – 5-year relative survival: Considering all races (2007-2008)

81% – regional disease – 5-year relative survival lower among women with more advanced stage of disease at diagnosis: Considering all races 2005-2006

85% – 1996-2002 White – Regional (2007-2008) *

80% – cancer spread regionally

78% – 2002 – 5-year relative survival rate: breast cancer spread regionally

72% – 1996-2002 African American – Regional (2007-2008) *
——————————————————————
36% – 1996-2002 African American – Regional: Stage Distribution – Female breast (2007-2008)

30% – 1996-2002 White – Regional: Stage Distribution – Female breast (2007-2008)

35% – African American – Regional (2005–2006)

35% – 1995-2000 (2001) – African American: Diagnosed
Female breast (2005-2006): Regional – Of all breast cancers diagnosed

28% – White – Regional (2005–2006)
——————————————————————
REGIONAL TUMORS
——————————————————————
94% – Larger tumor size at diagnosis also associated with decreased survival among women of all races with regional disease, 5-year relative survival for tumors less than or equal (2007-2008)

92% – tumors less than or equal to 2.0 cm – Larger tumor size at diagnosis associated with decreased survival among women of all races with regional disease, 5-year relative survival

77% – tumors 2.1-5.0 cm – Larger tumor size at diagnosis associated with decreased survival among women of all races with regional disease, 5-year relative survival

65% – tumors greater than 5.0 cm – Larger tumor size at diagnosis associated with decreased survival among women of all races with regional disease, 5-year relative survival
——————————————————————
DISTANT
——————————————————————
27% – women with distant spread (metastases) 5-year survival (2009-2010)

27% – 1995-2000 – White – Distant 5-year Relative Survival Rates (1995-2000 (2001) diagnosed) SEER 1975-2001 (2004) Female breast (2005-2006)

27% – distant-stage disease: 5-year relative survival, Considering all races (2007-2008)

26% – distant metastasis

26% – distant-stage disease – 2005-2006 5-year relative survival lower among women with more advanced stage of disease at diagnosis: Considering all races

28% – 1996-2002 White – Distant (2007-2008) *

21% – 2002 – 5-year relative survival rate: breast cancer distant metastasis

16% – 1996-2002 African American – Distant (2007-2008) *

15% – 1995-2000 – African American – Distant 5-year Relative Survival Rates (1995-2000 (2001) diagnosed) SEER 1975-2001 (2004) Female breast (2005-2006)

28% – 1995-2000 (2001) – White: Distant – Diagnosed Female breast (2005-2006): Of all breast cancers diagnosed
——————————————————————
9% – 1996-2002 African American – Distant – Stage Distribution African Americans – Female breast (2007-2008)

9% – African American – Distant (2005–2006)

9% – 1995-2000 (2001) – African American: Diagnosed
Female breast (2005-2006): Localized – Of all breast cancers diagnosed

6% – 1996-2002 White – Distant – Stage Distribution Whites – Female breast (2007-2008)

5% – White – Distant (2005–2006)
——————————————————————
UNSTAGED
——————————————————————
56% – 1996-2002 – Unstaged – White (2007-2008) *

56% – 1995-2000 – White – Unstaged 5-year Relative Survival Rates (1995-2000 (2001) diagnosed) SEER 1975-2001 (2004) Female breast (2005-2006)

50% – 1995-2000 – Unstaged – African American – 5-year Relative Survival Rates (1995-2000 (2001) diagnosed) SEER 1975-2001 (2004) Female breast (2005-2006)

45% – 1996-2002 – Unstaged – African American (2007-2008) *
——————————————————————
3% – 1996-2002 African American – Unstaged – Stage Distribution Whites – Female breast (2007-2008)

3% – African American – Unstaged (2005–2006)

3% – 1995-2000 (2001) – African American: Unstaged – Of all breast cancers diagnosed – Diagnosed
Female breast (2005-2006)

2% – 1996-2002 White – Unstaged – Stage Distribution Whites – Female breast (2007-2008)

2% – White – Unstaged (2005–2006)

2% – 1995-2000 (2001) – White: Diagnosed Female breast (2005-2006): Unstaged – Of all breast cancers diagnosed
——————————————————————
ALL – Trends in 5-Year Relative Survival Rates* by Race and Year of Diagnosis
——————————————————————
90% – 1999-2006 (2011) – 1975-2006
87% – 1992-1999 (2004)
87% – 1992-1999 (2004) – 1974-1999
86% – 1974-1998 (2003)
86% – 1992-1998 (2003) – 1974-1998
86% – 1992-1997 (2002) – 1974-1997
79% – 1984-1986 (2011) – 1975-2006
78% – 1983-1985 (2004)
78% – 1983-1985 (2004) – 1974-1999
78% – 1983-1985 (2002) – 1974-1997
75% – 1975-1977 (2011) – 1975-2006
78% – 1974-1998 (2003)
75% – 1974-1976 (2004)
75% – 1974-1976 (2004) – 1974-1999
75% – 1974-1976 (2002) – 1974-1997
——————————————————————
WHITE WOMEN – Trends in 5-Year Relative Survival Rates* by Race and Year of Diagnosis
——————————————————————
91% – 1999-2006 (2011) – 1975-2006
90% – 1996-2002 (2007)
88% – 1992-1999 (2004)
88% – 1992-1999 (2004) – 1974-1999
88% – 1992-1998 (2003) – 1974-1998
88% – 1974-1998 (2003)
87% – 1992-1997 (2002) – 1974-1997
81% – 1984-1986 (2011) – 1975-2006
79% – 1983-1985 (2004)
79% – 1983-1985 (2004) – 1974-1999
79% – 1983-1985 (2002) – 1974-1997
76% – 1975-1977 (2011) – 1975-2006
75% – 1974-1976 (2004)
75% – 1974-1976 (2004) – 1974-1999
75% – 1974-1976 (2002) – 1974-1997
——————————————————————
AFRICAN AMERICAN WOMEN – Trends in 5-Year Relative Survival Rates* by Race and Year of Diagnosis
——————————————————————
78% – 1999-2006 (2011) – 1975-2006
77% – 1996-2002 (2007)
74% – 1992-1999 (2004)
74% – 1992-1999 (2004) – 1974-1999
73% – 1992-1998 (2003) – 1974-1998
73% – 1974-1998 (2003)
72% – 1992-1997 (2002) – 1974-1997
65% – 1984-1986 (2011) – 1975-2006
64% – 1983-1985 (2004)
64% – 1983-1985 (2004) – 1974-1999
63% – 1983-1985 (2002) – 1974-1997
63% – 1974-1998 (2003)
63% – 1974-1976 (2004)
63% – 1974-1976 (2004) – 1974-1999
63% – 1974-1976 (2002) – 1974-1997
62% – 1975-1977 (2011) – 1975-2006
——————————————————————
COMBINED – Trends in 5-Year Relative Survival Rates* by Race and Year of Diagnosis
——————————————————————
91% – 1999-2006 – White Women – 1975-2006 (2011)
90% – 1999-2006 – All – 1975-2006 (2011)
90% – 1996-2002 – White Women (2007)
87% – 1992-1997 – White Women – 1974-1997 (2002)
86% – 1992-1997 – All – 1974-1997 (2002)
81% – 1984-1986 – White Women – 1975-2006 (2011)
79% – 1984-1986 – All – 1975-2006 (2011)
79% – 1983-1985 – White Women – 1974-1997 (2002)
78% – 1999-2006 – African American Women – 1975-2006 (2011)
78% – 1983-1985 – All – 1974-1997 (2002)
77% – 1996-2002 – African American Women (2007)
76% – 1975-1977 – White Women – 1975-2006 (2011)
75% – 1975-1977 – All – 1975-2006 (2011)
75% – 1974-1976 – All – 1974-1997 (2002)
75% – 1974-1976 – White Women – 1974-1997 (2002)
72% – 1992-1997 – African American Women – 1974-1997 (2002)
65% – 1984-1986 – African American Women – 1975-2006 (2011)
63% – 1983-1985 – African American Women – 1974-1997 (2002)
63% – 1974-1976 – African American Women – 1974-1997 (2002)
62% – 1975-1977 – African American Women – 1975-2006 (2011)
——————————————————————
COMBINED by YEAR – 1974-1997 – Trends in 5-Year Relative Survival Rates* by Race and Year of Diagnosis
——————————————————————
91% – 1999-2006 – White Women – 1975-2006 (2011)
90% – 1999-2006 – All – 1975-2006 (2011)
78% – 1999-2006 – African American Women – 1975-2006 (2011)
——————————————————————
90% – 1996-2002 – White Women (2007)
77% – 1996-2002 – African American Women (2007)
——————————————————————
87% – 1992-1997 – White Women (2002)
86% – 1992-1997 – All (2002)
72% – 1992-1997 – African American Women (2002)
——————————————————————
81% – 1984-1986 – White Women – 1975-2006 (2011)
79% – 1984-1986 – All – 1975-2006 (2011)
65% – 1984-1986 – African American Women – 1975-2006 (2011)
——————————————————————
79% – 1983-1985 – White Women (2002)
78% – 1983-1985 – All (2002)
63% – 1983-1985 – African American Women (2002)
——————————————————————
76% – 1975-1977 – White Women – 1975-2006 (2011)
75% – 1975-1977 – All – 1975-2006 (2011)
62% – 1975-1977 – African American Women – 1975-2006 (2011)
——————————————————————
75% – 1974-1976 – All (2002)
75% – 1974-1976 – White Women (2002)
63% – 1974-1976 – African American Women (2002)
——————————————————————
Stages (%) – 5-Year Relative Survival Rates by Stage at Diagnosis
——————————————————————
97.0% – 1992-1999 – Local (2004)
97% – 1992-1998 – Local (2003)
96% – 1992-1997 – Local (2002)
——————————————————————
88% – 2006 – All Stages (2006)
86.6% – 1992-1999 – All Stages (2004)
86% – 1992-1998 – All Stages (2003)
86% – 1992-1997 – All Stages (2002)
——————————————————————
81% – Regional (2006)
78.7% – 1992-1999 – Regional (2004)
78% – 1992-1998 – Regional (2003)
78% – 1992-1997 – Regional (2002)
——————————————————————
26% – 2006 – distant metastases (2006)
23.3% – 1992-1999 – Distant (2004)
23% – 1992-1998 – Distant (2003)
21% – 1992-1997 – Distant metastases (2002)
——————————————————————
*
——————————————————————
1996-2002 – 5-Year Relative Survival Rates (5-year relative survival rate among cancer patients diagnosed 1996-2002 followed through 2003) *

Female breast – (Source: Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program, 17 SEER Registries, 1973-2003, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, 2006) (2007-2008)

Local:

invasive cancer confined entirely to organ

Regional:

malignant cancer

1) extended beyond limits of organ of origin directly into surrounding organs or tissues

2) involves regional lymph nodes by way of lymphatic system

3) has both regional extension and involvement of regional lymph nodes

Distant:

cancer spread to parts of body remote from primary tumor either by direct extension or by discontinuous metastasis to distant organs, tissues, or via lymphatic system to distant lymph nodes

Source:

Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program, 17 SEER Registries, 1975-2003, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, 2006 (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
5-YEAR SURVIVAL – INVASIVE BREAST CANCER
——————————————————————
90% – 2002-2008 – women diagnosed with invasive breast cancer still living 5 years after getting disease (SEER, 2012)
——————————————————————
10-YEAR SURVIVAL RATES
——————————————————————
Caution should be used when interpreting 10-year survival rates since they represent detection and treatment circumstances 5-17 years ago and may underestimate expected survival based on current conditions (2009-2010)

Caution should be used when interpreting long-term survival rates since they reflect experience of women treated using past therapies and do not reflect recent trends in early detection or advances in treatment (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
87% – White – 10 year survivors after diagnosis relative 5 year survival rate (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
85% – African American – 10 year survivors after diagnosis relative 5 year survival rate (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
81% – 10 year – relative survival rates for women diagnosed with breast cancer (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
80% – 10 year – survival rate for all stages combined (2009-2010)
——————————————————————
80% – 10 years after diagnosis – relative survival rates for women diagnosed with breast cancer (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
77% – 10 year – Breast Cancer Survival Rates after Diagnosis (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
15-YEAR SURVIVAL RATE
——————————————————————
73% – 15 year – relative survival rates for women diagnosed with breast cancer (2007-2008)
——————————————————————
71% – 15 years after diagnosis – relative survival rates for women diagnosed with breast cancer (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
63% – 15 years – Breast Cancer Survival Rates after Diagnosis (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
20-YEAR SURVIVAL RATE
——————————————————————
63% – 20 years after diagnosis – relative survival rates for women diagnosed with breast cancer (2005-2006)
——————————————————————
52% – 20 years – Breast Cancer Survival Rates after Diagnosis (2005-2006)
======================================
Breast Cancer
American Cancer Society
Cancer Facts & Figures (2002-2014)
======================================
REFERENCES:
======================================
[A] – .7/30/2013, Tuesday – Karmanos Cancer Center’s Dr. David Gorski appointed program co-director of Michigan Breast Oncology Quality Initiative:
——————————————————————
http://www.karmanos.org/News/Default.aspx?sid=1&nid=359
======================================
[B] – .7/30/2013 – Dr. Gorski named co-director of Michigan Breast Oncology Quality Initiative:
——————————————————————
http://prognosis.med.wayne.edu/article/dr-gorski-named-codirector-of-michigan-breast-oncology-quality-initiative
======================================
[C] – 07/30/2013 – Dr. Gorski named co-director of Michigan Breast Oncology Quality Initiative : ——————————————————————
http://www.wsupgdocs.org/news-and-media/WayneStateContentPage.aspx?nd=1293&news=515
======================================
[D] – 2/1/2011 – Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Center Names Dr. David Gorski Leader of Breast Multidisciplinary Team:
/PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — The Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Center has named David Gorski, M.D., Ph.D., leader of the Breast Multidisciplinary Team (MDT), effective Tuesday, Feb. 1
——————————————————————
http://m.prnewswire.com/news-releases/barbara-ann-karmanos-cancer-center-names-dr-david-gorski-leader-of-breast-multidisciplinary-team-115018114.html
======================================
[E] – 11/2/2011, Wednesday – Make the Right Move:
——————————————————————
http://www.karmanos.org/News/breast-cancer-specialists
======================================
[F]
——————————————————————
http://cancerbiologyprogram.med.wayne.edu/faculty/gorski.php
======================================
[G] – Research Interest:
——————————————————————
http://www.wsusurgery.com/research-team-dr-gorski/
======================================
[H]
——————————————————————
http://wsusurgery.com/facultyc3/david-gorski/
——————————————————————
http://www.wsusurgery.com/facultyc3/david-gorski/
======================================
[I]
——————————————————————
http://wsusurgery.com/research-team-dr-gorski/
——————————————————————
http://www.wsusurgery.com/research-team-dr-gorski/
======================================
[J]
——————————————————————
http://karmanos.org/Physicians/Details.aspx?sid=1&physician=70
——————————————————————
http://www.karmanos.org/Physicians/Details.aspx?sid=1&physician=70
======================================
[K]
——————————————————————
http://sciencebasedmedicine.org/editorial-staff/
——————————————————————
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/editorial-staff/
======================================
[L]
——————————————————————
http://www.scienceinmedicine.org/fellows/GorskiD.html
——————————————————————
http://scienceinmedicine.org/fellows/GorskiD.html
======================================
[M]
——————————————————————
http://sciencebasedmedicine.org/editorial-staff/david-h-gorski-md-phd-managing-editor/
——————————————————————
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/editorial-staff/david-h-gorski-md-phd-managing-editor/
======================================
[N]
——————————————————————
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence
======================================
[O]
——————————————————————
http://ncas.org/2013/02/mar-9-david-h-gorski-quackademic.html?m=1
——————————————————————
http://www.ncas.org/2013/02/mar-9-david-h-gorski-quackademic.html?m=1
======================================
[P]
——————————————————————
http://whybiotech.com/?p=3808
——————————————————————
http://www.whybiotech.com/?p=3808
======================================
[Q]
——————————————————————
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Gorski
======================================
[R] – Breast Cancer Research – Dr. Gorski:
——————————————————————
http://www.wsusurgery.com/breast-cancer-research-dr-gorski/
======================================
[S] – Selected Publications:
——————————————————————
http://www.wsusurgery.com/selected-publications-dr-gorski/
======================================
[T] – Lab Photos:
——————————————————————
http://www.wsusurgery.com/lab-photos-dr-gorski/
======================================
[U]
——————————————————————
https://www.doximity.com/pub/david-gorski-md
======================================
[V] – Detroit, Michigan population
——————————————————————
http://www.worldpopulationstatistics.com/detroit-population-2013/
======================================
[W]
——————————————————————
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/26/2622000.html
======================================
[X]
——————————————————————
http://www.city-data.com/city/Detroit-Michigan.html
======================================
[Y] – 11/13/2013 – The War on Cancer (I don’t think it means, what you think it says it means) #Winning?:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/11/13/httpcancer-orgacsgroupscontentepidemiologysurveilancedocumentsdocumentacspc-036845-pdf/
======================================
[Z] – 3/9/2013 – Quackademic Medicine: How pseudoscience is infiltrating medical academia.”
——————————————————————
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mewOSMNgfGQ&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DmewOSMNgfGQ
======================================
[]
——————————————————————
http://www.nixonlibrary.gov/forresearchers/find/tapes/excerpts/watergate.php
——————————————————————
http://whitehousetapes.net/transcript/nixon/cancer-presidency
——————————————————————
http://m.washingtonpost.com/politics/cancer-on-the-presidency/2012/06/08/gJQAp24LOV_video.html
——————————————————————
http://www.history.com/speeches/nixon-and-dean-discuss-watergate
======================================
2013-2014 Breast Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————

Click to access acspc-040951.pdf

——————————————————————

Click to access acspc-040951.pdf

——————————————————————
2013-2014 Cancer Facts & Figures for African Americans
——————————————————————

Click to access acspc-036921.pdf

——————————————————————

Click to access acspc-036921.pdf

——————————————————————
2012-2014 Cancer Facts & Figures for Hispanics / Latinos
——————————————————————

Click to access acspc-034778.pdf

——————————————————————

Click to access acspc-034778.pdf

======================================
2013 – Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————
http://cancer.org/research/cancerfactsfigures/cancerfactsfigures/cancer-facts-figures-2013
——————————————————————
http://m.cancer.org/research/cancerfactsfigures/cancerfactsfigures/cancer-facts-figures-2013
——————————————————————
2013-2014 Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————

Click to access acspc-040951.pdf

——————————————————————

Click to access acspc-040951.pdf

——————————————————————

——————————————————————
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.3322/caac.21203/full
——————————————————————
2013
——————————————————————

Click to access breast-cancer-facts-2012.pdf

——————————————————————

Click to access breast-cancer-facts-2012.pdf

——————————————————————
2012-2013 Survivorship
——————————————————————

Click to access acspc-033876.pdf

——————————————————————

Click to access acspc-033876.pdf

——————————————————————
2013 – Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————

Click to access acspc-036845.pdf

——————————————————————

Click to access acspc-036845.pdf

——————————————————————
2013 – Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————
http://cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/cancerfactsfigures2013/index
——————————————————————
http://m.cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/cancerfactsfigures2013/index
======================================
2011-2012 Breast Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————
http://cancer.org/research/cancerfactsfigures/breastcancerfactsfigures/breast-cancer-facts-and-figures-2011-2012
——————————————————————
http://m.cancer.org/research/cancerfactsfigures/breastcancerfactsfigures/breast-cancer-facts-and-figures-2011-2012
——————————————————————
Breast Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————
http://cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/breast-cancer-facts-figures
——————————————————————
http://m.cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/breast-cancer-facts-figures
——————————————————————
2012 – Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————

Click to access acspc-031941.pdf

——————————————————————

Click to access acspc-031941.pdf

——————————————————————
2012 – Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————
http://cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/cancerfactsfigures2012/index
——————————————————————
http://m.cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/cancerfactsfigures2012/index
——————————————————————
2012 – Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————
http://cancer.org/research/cancerfactsfigures/cancerfactsfigures/cancer-facts-figures-2012
——————————————————————
http://m.cancer.org/research/cancerfactsfigures/cancerfactsfigures/cancer-facts-figures-2012
——————————————————————
2011-2012 Cancer Facts & Figures for African Americans
——————————————————————

Click to access acspc-027765.pdf

——————————————————————

Click to access acspc-027765.pdf

======================================
2011 – Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————

Click to access acspc-029771.pdf

——————————————————————

Click to access acspc-029771.pdf

——————————————————————
2011 – Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————
http://cancer.org/research/cancerfactsfigures/cancerfactsfigures/cancer-facts-figures-2011
——————————————————————
http://m.cancer.org/research/cancerfactsfigures/cancerfactsfigures/cancer-facts-figures-2011
——————————————————————
2009-2011 Cancer Facts & Figures for Hispanics / Latinos
——————————————————————

Click to access ffhispanicslatinos20092011.pdf

——————————————————————

Click to access ffhispanicslatinos20092011.pdf

======================================
2010
——————————————————————
http://cancer.org/research/cancerfactsfigures/breastcancerfactsfigures/breast-cancer-facts-figures-2009-2010
——————————————————————
http://m.cancer.org/research/cancerfactsfigures/breastcancerfactsfigures/breast-cancer-facts-figures-2009-2010
——————————————————————
2009-2010 Breast Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————

Click to access f861009final90809pdf.pdf

——————————————————————

Click to access f861009final90809pdf.pdf

——————————————————————
2010 – Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————

Click to access acspc-024113.pdf

——————————————————————

Click to access acspc-024113.pdf

——————————————————————
2010 – Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————
http://cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/cancerfactsfigures2010/index
——————————————————————
http://m.cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/cancerfactsfigures2010/index
——————————————————————
2009-2010 Cancer Facts & Figures for African Americans
——————————————————————

Click to access cffaa20092010pdf.pdf

——————————————————————

Click to access cffaa20092010pdf.pdf

======================================
2009
——————————————————————
http://www.komenstlouis.org/site/DocServer/DiversityAsianPacific.pdf?docID=222
——————————————————————
2009-2010 Cancer Facts & Figures for African Americans
——————————————————————

Click to access cffaa20092010pdf.pdf

——————————————————————

Click to access cffaa20092010pdf.pdf

——————————————————————
2009 – Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————

Click to access 500809webpdf.pdf

——————————————————————

Click to access 500809webpdf.pdf

——————————————————————
2009 – Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————
http://cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/cancerfactsfigures2009/index
——————————————————————
http://m.cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/cancerfactsfigures2009/index
——————————————————————
2009 – Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————
http://cancer.org/research/cancerfactsfigures/cancerfactsfigures/cancer-facts-figures-2009
——————————————————————
http://m.cancer.org/research/cancerfactsfigures/cancerfactsfigures/cancer-facts-figures-2009
======================================
Breast Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————
http://www.cancer.org/research/cancerfactsfigures/breastcancerfactsfigures/
——————————————————————
http://m.cancer.org/research/cancerfactsfigures/breastcancerfactsfigures/
——————————————————————
2007-2008 Breast Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————

Click to access bcfffinalpdf.pdf

——————————————————————

Click to access bcfffinalpdf.pdf

——————————————————————
Cancer Facts and Statistics
——————————————————————
http://cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/index
——————————————————————
http://m.cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/index
——————————————————————
2008 – Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————
http://cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/allcancerfactsfigures/index
——————————————————————
http://m.cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/allcancerfactsfigures/index
——————————————————————
2008 – Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————
http://cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/cancerfactsfigures2008/index
——————————————————————
http://m.cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/cancerfactsfigures2008/index
——————————————————————
2008 – Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————

Click to access 2008cafffinalsecuredpdf.pdf

——————————————————————

Click to access 2008cafffinalsecuredpdf.pdf

——————————————————————
2008 – Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————

Click to access worldcancer.pdf

——————————————————————

Click to access worldcancer.pdf

——————————————————————
Global
——————————————————————

Click to access acspc-027766.pdf

——————————————————————

Click to access acspc-027766.pdf

——————————————————————
2008 – Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————
http://cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/cancerfactsfigures2008/index
——————————————————————
http://m.cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/cancerfactsfigures2008/index
——————————————————————
Cancer Facts and Figures
——————————————————————
http://cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/allcancerfactsfigures/index
——————————————————————
http://m.cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/allcancerfactsfigures/index
======================================
2007-2008 Breast Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————

Click to access bcfffinalpdf.pdf

——————————————————————

Click to access bcfffinalpdf.pdf

——————————————————————

——————————————————————
http://komen.org/BreastCancer/BreastFactsReferences.html
——————————————————————

——————————————————————
http://ww5.komen.org/BreastCancer/BreastFactsReferences.html
——————————————————————
2007 – Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————

Click to access caff2007pwsecuredpdf.pdf

——————————————————————

Click to access caff2007pwsecuredpdf.pdf

——————————————————————
2007 – Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————
http://cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/cancerfactsfigures2007/index
——————————————————————
http://m.cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/cancerfactsfigures2007/index
——————————————————————
2007 – Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————
http://cancer.org/research/cancerfactsfigures/cancerfactsfigures/cancer-facts-figures-2007
——————————————————————
http://m.cancer.org/research/cancerfactsfigures/cancerfactsfigures/cancer-facts-figures-2007
——————————————————————
2007-2008 Cancer Facts & Figures for African Americans
——————————————————————

Click to access caff2007aaacspdf2007pdf.pdf

——————————————————————

Click to access caff2007aaacspdf2007pdf.pdf

——————————————————————
2006-2008 Cancer Facts & Figures for Hispanics / Latinos
——————————————————————

Click to access caff2006hisppwsecuredpdf.pdf

——————————————————————

Click to access caff2006hisppwsecuredpdf.pdf

======================================
2006 – Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————

Click to access caff2006pwsecuredpdf.pdf

——————————————————————

Click to access caff2006pwsecuredpdf.pdf

——————————————————————
2006 – Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————
http://cancer.org/research/cancerfactsfigures/cancerfactsfigures/cancer-facts-figures-2006
——————————————————————
http://m.cancer.org/research/cancerfactsfigures/cancerfactsfigures/cancer-facts-figures-2006
——————————————————————
2005-2006 Breast Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————
http://cancer.org/research/cancerfactsfigures/breastcancerfactsfigures/breast-cancer-facts–figures-2005-2006
——————————————————————
2005-2006 Breast Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————

Click to access caff2005brfacspdf2005pdf.pdf

——————————————————————

Click to access caff2005brfacspdf2005pdf.pdf

——————————————————————
2005-2006 Breast Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————
http://m.cancer.org/research/cancerfactsfigures/breastcancerfactsfigures/breast-cancer-facts–figures-2005-2006
——————————————————————
2005-2006 Cancer Facts & Figures for African Americans
——————————————————————

Click to access caff2005aacorrpwsecuredpdf.pdf

——————————————————————

Click to access caff2005aacorrpwsecuredpdf.pdf

======================================
2005 – Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————

Click to access caff2005f4pwsecuredpdf.pdf

——————————————————————

Click to access caff2005f4pwsecuredpdf.pdf

——————————————————————

——————————————————————
http://worldwidebreastcancer.com/learn/breast-cancer-statistics-worldwide/
——————————————————————

——————————————————————
http://www.worldwidebreastcancer.com/learn/breast-cancer-statistics-worldwide/
——————————————————————
Cancer Facts and Figures
——————————————————————
http://cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/allcancerfactsfigures/index
——————————————————————
http://m.cancer.org/research/cancerfactsstatistics/allcancerfactsfigures/index
——————————————————————
2005 – Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————
http://cancer.org/research/cancerfactsfigures/cancerfactsfigures/cancer-facts-figures-2005
——————————————————————
http://m.cancer.org/research/cancerfactsfigures/cancerfactsfigures/cancer-facts-figures-2005
======================================
2003-2004 Breast Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————

Click to access caff2003brfpwsecuredpdf.pdf

——————————————————————

Click to access caff2003brfpwsecuredpdf.pdf

——————————————————————
2004 – Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————

Click to access CancerRates2004.pdf

======================================
2003
——————————————————————
http://cancer.org/cancer/breastcancer/detailedguide/breast-cancer-references
——————————————————————
http://m.cancer.org/cancer/breastcancer/detailedguide/breast-cancer-references
——————————————————————
2003 – Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————

Click to access 2003_ACS_Cancer_Facts.pdf

======================================
2002 – American Cancer Society Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————

Click to access acspc-027766.pdf

——————————————————————

Click to access acspc-027766.pdf

——————————————————————
2002 – Cancer Facts & Figures
——————————————————————

Click to access CancerFacts&Figures2002.pdf

======================================

Advertisement

Wikipedia or Wikipediantic ? – wants your 3 pounds of flesh (WikiPEEdia, UR all INe)

[WP:SOP] “Statement of principles from Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, as updated by the community since then. 7.”)

Due & undue weight: [3]

“The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant & should not be considered,”

[WP:NPOV] “History of NPOV:” (Content # 6, Note 3)

(Neutral Point of View)
——————————————————————
TRANSLATION: Wikipedia editors, YOUR OPINION IS NOT RELEVANT
——————————————————————
MEANING: It is meaningless to attempt to slather your biased OPINION all over Wikipedia like butter on Texas toast, since supposedly, we only care about verifiable FACTS
======================================
Wikipedia, what the problem is ?

Jimmy Donal Wales

Who ?

No, “The Who” is actually really British !

(as opposed to some “furreigner” who plops across the pond, wants to pound one of your pelts after a celebrity hunt, pops it in his bonnet, pip-pips about, and mounts it up on his rented wall along with what’s left of his balls)

I’m writing, of course, about “Jimbo,” the one who got away . . . Thankfully

The recipient of the write-up earlier this year in The New York Times [1] (Oh, pithy !!)
——————————————————————
Wales, who no longer runs the day-to-day operations of Wikipedia

“He applies his libertarian worldview to the Internet and has taken on institutions like the United States government“
——————————————————————
You must be bloody well right joking me

(joking me ? Quit jokin’ me !)

JimCrow’s ’bout as “libertarian” as Fidel Castro with a gun in his hand and (f)lies between his teeth; from traveling with the windows down

Stephen Colbert shoulda seen that comin’ from a 8 mile away

Hey Stephen, Report’ THAT !!!
——————————————————————
“He grew up in Huntsville, Ala., the son of a teacher and a retail man“
——————————————————————
And obviously, he didn’t “learnt” well

I think a refund’s in order

And here’s your free school Insolence to go with it

Happy eat in’

It is claimed that “HE” spends time:
——————————————————————
“traveling the world giving talks on free speech and Internet freedom“
——————————————————————
seriously ?

Seriously ??

SERIOUSLY ???

Welcome to MizFitTV

What would “Jymboree” know about “free speech” and “Internet freedom,“ anyway ?

How many days did you serve your country in the United States military ?

Oh, you did NOT realize that while you were in San Diego, you could have signed that contract ?

After all, he’s no Vincent Kennedy McMahon”
(“HE” knows where “HIS” GRAPEFRUITS are)
======================================
“B.D.F.L., or the Benevolent Dictator for Life”
——————————————————————
How ’bout:

Big
Disappointing
Fascist
Loser ?
——————————————————————
“Argumentum ad Jimbonem” means dutifully following what Wales says, but there are even arguments about that”
——————————————————————
WP:NICETRY, but that’s “SHEEPLE”
——————————————————————
“One Wikipedia editor said, for instance, that Wales was no longer comfortable with the B.D.F.L. description”
——————————————————————
Jiminy Cricket !

Whazzamatta Jiminy?

Did “FASCIST” hit a bit too close to home ?
——————————————————————
“(There is, among some, a debate over what to call him)”

“Some users have also disputed the Latinized version of “Jimbo.”“

“(Should it be “Jimboni” or “Jimbini”?)”
——————————————————————
Can you smell what “The Rock” is cookin’ ?

La-La-La-La-Laaaaaaawwww, JIMBRONI !!!!!!!

Get ready, and bend over, ’cause I’m gonna shine this thing up, turn it sideways, and shove it straight up your Candy AstroTurf hatch
——————————————————————
Introduction (statement of principles) [WP:SOP]

“This is a statement of principles from Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, as updated by the community since then”
——————————————————————
(Or if you go by The New York Times article, [1] Jimbroni is the “co-founder” who tries to re-write history to make it appear that “HE” is the one-and-only Fascist Founder ?)
——————————————————————
“I should point out that these are my principles, such that I am the final judge of them”

“This does not mean that I will not listen to you, but it does mean that at some ultimate, fundamental level, this is how Wikipedia will be run”
——————————————————————
No, actually, it DOES mean that he will NOT listen to you, as was the case when he ignored my 2/7/2013 appeal

In his defense, perhaps Kate Garvey has his balls
——————————————————————
Principles

1. “Wikipedia’s success to date is entirely a function of our open community”

“This community will continue to live and breathe and grow only so long as those of us who participate in it continue to Do The Right Thing”

“Doing The Right Thing takes many forms, but perhaps most central is the preservation of our shared vision for the neutral point of view policy and for a culture of thoughtful, diplomatic honesty”
——————————————————————
The problem with this Wacky Tobacky “We are the (Wiki) World” WikiWhOReD Wonderland Jimbroni’s living in, is that “HE” has NOT been Doing The Right Thing since “HE” abdicated “his” “neutral point of view policy” and “culture of thoughtful, diplomatic honesty,” to “The Skeptics”

“The Skeptics,” who serve as gatekeepers of the Burzynski Clinic article, and who cite Dr. David H. Gorski a/k/a “Orac” aka GorskGeek as if he were a “reliable source”

“The Skeptics,” who bring new meaning to the term “Wikipedia Zero”

“The Skeptics,” who are Intellectual Cowards like their false god Gorski, the Closet Communist of Science-Based Medicine a/k/a Science-Basted Medicine aka Science-Based Mudicine (Spinning Bowel Movement), Wiki Wordsmith Wannabes, nut-jobbers, stale from their failure at the National Peanut Festival in Dothan, Alabama
——————————————————————
3. ““You can edit this page right now” is a core guiding check on everything that we do”

“We must respect this principle as sacred”
——————————————————————
Do the lies just dribble off your chin like phlegm?

You canNOT just go in and “edit” the Burzynski Clinic article “page right now”

That statement is pure, unadulterated Alabama B.S.

That’s NOT a “sacred principle,” it’s sacré “bull”
——————————————————————
7. “Anyone with a complaint should be treated with the utmost respect and dignity”
——————————————————————
Unfortunately, you do NOT practice what you preach, do you, HYPOCRITE ?
——————————————————————
“They should be encouraged constantly to present their problems in a constructive way”
——————————————————————
So that you can ignore the problem(s), right, Jimbroni ?
——————————————————————
“Anyone who just complains without foundation, refusing to join the discussion, should simply be rejected and ignored”
——————————————————————
THAT would automatically exclude all of “The Skeptics” now, wouldn’t it ?
——————————————————————
“We must not let the “squeaky wheel” be greased just for being a jerk”
——————————————————————
Jimbroni, why have you allowed “The Skeptics” to choose from their “squeaky” wheel-house bag o’ tricks, get all “greased” up and jerk” so many people around in such a big CIRCLE-JERK, for so long?
——————————————————————
8. “Diplomacy consists of combining honesty and politeness”

“Both are objectively valuable moral principles”

“Be honest with me, but don’t be mean to me”

“Don’t misrepresent my views for your own political ends, and I’ll treat you the same way”
——————————————————————
“Honesty” and “politeness” are really great “buzzwords,” Jimbroni, but they are as foreign to your “Skeptics,” as “moral principles”
——————————————————————
A great example of the questionable “honesty” and “moral principles” of one of your apparatchiks, was demonstrated 2/3/2013, 6:56, when I sent an arbitration appeal e-mail to Wikipedia, advising, in part, that the e-mail listed on Wikipedia; as the one that blocked users should use, did NOT work, because there was NO “@” sign in it

There was a . (period) where the “@” sign belonged
——————————————————————

——————————————————————
2/3/2013, 8:11 AM, Anthony (AGK) BASC
wikiagk@gmail.com advised:

“Everything you have said in that e-mail demonstrates a misunderstanding or misreading of Wikipedia policy”
——————————————————————

——————————————————————
Check the “time” and “place” where you are, so that you, too, can advise, that according to Wikipedia, pointing out to them that the e-mail they advise people to use, DOES NOT WORK; because there is no “@” sign in it (instead, there’s a . (period)), translates into meaning:
——————————————————————
“Everything you have said in that e-mail demonstrates a misunderstanding or misreading of Wikipedia policy”
======================================
Core principles

Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset [WP:SR]

Wikipedia does not have its own views, or determine what is “correct”
——————————————————————
I wish I could LIE like that, but I have a conscience
======================================
12/24/2012, Monday – 3:52 pm – 21:52 (UTC) –
“We are told that 2013 will be a big year, but apparently his plan is to release another bullshit movie not to publish useful research”

[User Talk:JzG|Guy] ([User JzG/help|Help!]) [2]

——————————————————————
“Bullshit movie” ?
——————————————————————

——————————————————————
Does anyone other than me NOT think it a “coinkydink” that some “Guy” on Wikipedia, going by the name “Guy”, using the same 2 words (“Bullshit movie”) as a “Guy” on Twitter ?
======================================
2. Founding principles:

“Neutrality is mandatory . . . “
——————————————————————
I call B.S.

“Neutrality is mandatory,” EXCEPT on the Burzynski Clinic article, controlled by “The Skeptics”
——————————————————————
4. “Ignore all rules (IAR):”

“Rules on Wikipedia are not fixed in stone”
——————————————————————
Especially when Jimbroni allows “The Skeptics”
to “dictator” the “rules”
——————————————————————
“The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule”

“The common purpose of building an encyclopedia trumps both”

“This means that any rule can be broken for a very good reason, if it ultimately helps to improve the encyclopedia”
——————————————————————
And “The Skeptics” are NOT required to provide ANY reason for having broken “any rule”
——————————————————————
“It doesn’t mean that anything can be done just by claiming IAR, or that discussion is not necessary to explain one’s decision”
——————————————————————
But do NOT expect Wikipedia to require anything from The Skeptics”
——————————————————————
Founding principles

1. “Neutral point of view (NPOV) as a mandatory editorial principle”
—————————————————————–
EXCEPT when it comes to the Burzynski Clinic article
——————————————————————
12/26/2012 – I attempted to get Wikipedia to reference the interview which Burzynski’s attorney, Richard (Rick) A. Jaffe, and Lola Quinlan’s attorney; who posted it on his web-site, had given: [4]

Please add re WP:NPOV that Burzynski’s attorney, Richard Jaffe has disputed Lola Quinlan’s claims:

“On February 1, 2012, Dr. Burzynski’s attorney, Richard Jaffe, disputed Lola Quinlan’s allegations on Houston’s KPRC News.”

Thank you very much.[[User: Didymus Judas Thomas 15:03, 12/26/2012 (UTC)
——————————————————————
So? [OR] Disputing it in the media probably means he doesn’t have a case. [/OR] In any case, a lawyer disputing the allegations against his client is not even news. — [[User: Arthur Rubin 15:24, 12/26/2012 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin, I’m not sure what relevance your above post has re WP:NPOV since the article includes statements from attorneys representing both sides

17:51, 12/27/2012 (UTC) Didymus Judas Thomas

======================================
12/24/2012, Monday – 3:54 pm (21:54.UTC) – “What they mean is that nobody else is doing any meaningful work on it, which necessarily means that it’s not considered in the least promising.”

[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]] ([User JzG/help|Help!])

“Nobody else is doing meaningful work on it” ?

Ignores independent research done in Poland, Russia, Korea, Egypt, Japan, & China which specifically reference SRB’s publications in their publications re antineoplastons & phenylacetylglutamine (PG); which is AS2-5, & includes phase III trials published in China & continued research being published in China 12/17/2012?

FACTS:

1. I pointed out to Wikipedia, a 12/17/2012 scientific publication re antineoplastons, which referenced Burzynski @ 22. (antineoplaston AS21)

2. 7 days after this scientific journal was published, Wikipedia’a “Guy (Help!’s) ”response, Monday, 12/24/2012 @ 3:54 pm, is to advise me:

“What they mean is that nobody else is doing any meaningful work on it, which necessarily means that it’s not considered in the least promising.”

Guy (Help!) 3:54 pm, 12/24/2012, Monday

3. So, Wikipedia’s, Guy (Help!), defines an event having been published 7 days ago (12/17/2012 to 12/24/2012) as:

“…nobody else is doing any meaningful work on it…”

12/17/2012
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3524164
CDA-2 (cell differentiation agent 2), a URINARY preparation
http://po.st/g71N8P
CDA-2 and its main component PHENYLACETYLGLUTAMINE (PG or PAG)
Antineoplaston AS2-5 is PHENYLACETYLGLUTAMINE (PAG or PG)
http://redd.it/1dk974
Antineoplaston AS2-1 is a 4:1 mixture of phenylacetic acid (PA) and PHENYLACETYLGLUTAMINE (PAG or PG)
Antineoplastons AS2-5 and AS2-1 are derived from Antineoplaston A10
BURZYNSKI Reference: 22.
antineoplaston AS21
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0052117
======================================
12/26/2012, Wednesday – 12:43 – “There is unlikely to be any dispassionate debate over ANPs while Burzynski continues with his unethical practices.”

JzG|Guy User:JzG/help|Help!

Wikipedia: Judge, Jury, Executioner
======================================

“The world, right now, considers Burzynski to be at best unethical and at worst a quack…”?

Since when did Wikipedia conduct a world-wide “opinion poll” re Burzynski ?

And if Wikipedia is correct, how did this happen ?

Burzynski referenced by other Cancer researchers:

2011 – Phase II trial of tipifarnib and radiation in children with newly diagnosed diffuse intrinsic pontine gliomas
http://neuro-oncology.oxfordjournals.org/content/13/3/298.full
University of California—San Francisco

Children’s Hospital Boston, Massachusetts

St Jude Children’s Research Hospital, Memphis, Tennessee

Seattle Children’s Hospital, Seattle, Washington

Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Children’s National Medical Center, Washington, DC

Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center, Ohio

Neuro Oncol (2011) 13 (3): 298-306
doi: 10.1093/neuonc/noq202

5.723 Impact Factor

25. ↵ Burzynski SR
Treatments for astrocytic tumors in children: current and emerging strategies
Paediatr Drugs. 2006;8:167-178
http://link.springer.com/article/10.2165%2F00148581-200608030-00003
Pediatric Drugs
May 2006, Volume 8, Issue 3, pp 167-178
======================================

——————————————————————
Rhode Island Red attempts to get away with misquoting me:
——————————————————————

——————————————————————
“The other argument is that the secondary sources (i.e., respected cancer organizations, FDA, etc.) are not reliable because they are Burzynski’s “competitors”

[[User: Rhode Island Red]] 4:18 pm, Yesterday (UTC−6)
======================================

——————————————————————
What a Wipocrite (Wiki + Hypocrite)

Steve Pereira (SilkTork) is such a “WIPOCRITE,” that he claims:
——————————————————————
“the community were united that your contributions were biased”
——————————————————————
He conveniently; like a good little mini-Jimbroni would, ignores ALL of his fellow WIPOCRITES comments, which completely ignored:
——————————————————————
([WP:SOP] “Statement of principles from Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, as updated by the community since then. 7.”)

Due & undue weight: [3]

“The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant & should not be considered,”

[WP:NPOV] “History of NPOV:” (Content # 6, Note 3)

(Neutral Point of View)
——————————————————————
1. 12/24/2012, Monday – 3:52 pm – 21:52 (UTC) – “We are told that 2013 will be a big year, but apparently his plan is to release another bullshit movie not to publish useful research”
——————————————————————
2. 12/24/2012, Monday – 3:54 pm (21:54.UTC) – “What they mean is that nobody else is doing any meaningful work on it, which necessarily means that it’s not considered in the least promising.”
——————————————————————
3. 12/26/2012, Wednesday – 12:43 – “There is unlikely to be any dispassionate debate over ANPs while Burzynski continues with his unethical practices.”
——————————————————————
4. 12/30/2012 8:58 “The world, right now, considers Burzynski to be at best unethical and at worst a quack…”?
——————————————————————
Am I NOT the only one convinced that “the community” was also “united” in something more than just their “goose-stepping ?
——————————————————————
Pereira, the imperfect ‘pedia Pimp tries to Wow his readers by waxing WikiWhOReD, by ignoring that ALL the previous BIASED opinion B.S. that his fellow-Facist forged ahead with, and which Wikipediantic history says means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING (say it again) because it is their BIASED OPINION and is ABSOLUTELY WORTHLESS, and it was as so much WikiLitter, well, he’s just facist-free speechless about that, as any Jimbroni AstroTurf Twerk should be
======================================
To show exactly what zealots these WikiPimps are, just absorb this exchange:
——————————————————————
“The Burzynski Clinic Article has:

“…a Mayo Clinic study found no benefit….”

But that was not what the study concluded

See below:
——————————————————————
“CONCLUSION:

Although we could not confirm any tumor regression in patients in this study, the small sample size precludes definitive conclusions about treatment efficacy.”
——————————————————————
In the interest of Neutrality, please remove the reference to Mayo entirely or change to;
——————————————————————
“…a Mayo Clinic study found that “the small sample size precludes definitive conclusions about treatment efficacy.”
——————————————————————
Thank you very much

Didymus Judas Thomas 21:12, 12/10/2012
——————————————————————
“How is “found no benefit” not a a fair and pithy description of the Mayo Clinic study’s summary?”

Alexbrn 21:24, 12/10/2012
——————————————————————
“I feel this should be changed under WP:NPOV because not every reader is going to understand the “Fair & Pithy” reason I was provided

I feel that the average reader reading this will read it as meaning a study was done & completed with the necessary # of people for an effective study, when that was not the conclusion as pointed out in my above post

Thank you very much.”

Didymus Judas Thomas 11:02, 12/18/2012
——————————————————————
NO RESPONSE

That’s right !

“NO RESPONSE” from the “mini-b” (a/k/a “mini-brain”), wannabe Fascists who are so zealous about using their alleged “Fair and Pithy” “found no benefit” WikiWhOReD; which they utilize in an effort to deceive those who are NOT smarter than a fifth-grader

These WikiPimps are so certain of the righteousness of their evangelical cause, that they do NOT even have the “GRAPEFRUITS” to use what the study’s conclusions actually said, and let the chips fall where they may

There are a lot of “chips” falling at Wikipedia

“BULL CHIPS”

JIMBRONI, you’re no Maggie Thatcher

You can’t even wear her pants
——————————————————————
Margaret Thatcher: “The Iron Lady”

Jimbroni: “No iron in the pants”
——————————————————————
Jimbroni’s list of Facist, mini-Hitler, Monty Pythonesque Women’s underwear wearing Wannabes on Wikipediantic:

1. Alexbrn
2. fluffernutter
3. NE Ent
4. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 (Seb az86556)
5. Tom Morris
6. Guerillero
7. Dave Dial
8. John
9. Nstrauss
10. Yobol
11. Drmies
12. foxj
13. Ironholds
14. Rhode Island Red
15. Anthony (AGK) BASC wikiagk@gmail.com
16. Steve Pereira (Silk Tork) silktork@gmail.com
——————————————————————
WikiWhOReD (Wiki + Word + Whore): Pimping a word. Attempting to deceive someone by means of misdirection with words
——————————————————————
The South will rise again, just not in Jimbroni’s pants
——————————————————————
Happy Friday the 13th, Wikipediantic
======================================
REFERENCES:
======================================
[1] – 6/27/2013 – Jimmy Wales Is Not an Internet Billionaire (By AMY CHOZICK):
——————————————————————
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/06/30/magazine/jimmy-wales-is-not-an-internet-billionaire.html
======================================
[2] – 12/24/2012, Monday – 3:52 pm – 21:52 (UTC) – [User Talk:JzG|Guy] ([User:JzG/help|Help!])
——————————————————————
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Burzynski_Clinic&diff=next&oldid=529537854
======================================
[3] – 12/26/2012 – Lola A. Quinlan:
——————————————————————
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Burzynski_Clinic&diff=prev&oldid=529836971
——————————————————————
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Burzynski_Clinic&diff=next&oldid=529836971
——————————————————————
Houston’s KPRC News:
——————————————————————
http://m.click2houston.com/news/Houston-cancer-doctor-draws-new-complaints-from-patients/-/16714936/8581480/-/hmrbjk/-/index.html
——————————————————————
Lola A. Quinlan’s attorney’s web-site:
——————————————————————
http://www.jag-lawfirm.com/burzynski-suit-kprc-02012012.html
======================================
[4] – –
——————————————————————
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Didymus_Judas_Thomas&diff=next&oldid=528610760
======================================

These mini-b’s went so far as to allege all sorts of sockpuppetry

Wikipediantic, why don’t you list all the dates and times I was supposedly doing all of these activities; and don’t forget to include all the time I spent blogging, on Twitter, making comments on articles, etc., and once you have all that data compiled, explain how one individual could do all that in a 24-hour day

That’s right Wikipediantic

I’m challenging you to put up or shut up your cornholio

Critiquing: Eric Merola and Stanislaw Burzynski respond to the FDA findings and the USA TODAY story. Hilarity ensues

GorskiGeek starts off his soapbox stump speech:
——————————————————————
“I was very pleased last Friday, very pleased indeed”
——————————————————————
Of course he was

After all, it was as if USA TODAY was quoting directly from “The Skeptics™” fave Fahrvergnügen pharyngula and GorskGeeks’s jacked July jabberwocky at “The Amazing Meeting” 2013 (TAM 2013 #TAM2013) Twitter Twaddle-fest

Given the normal subject matter of this blog, in which I face a seemingly unrelenting infiltration of pseudononsense pseudononscience and hackery into even the most hallowed halls of hacademic medicine, against which I seem to be fighting a mostly uphill battle, having an opportunity to see such an excellent non-deconstruction of science and medicine in a large bad mainstream news outlet like USA TODAY, GONE TOMORROW is rare and ungratifying

GorskGeek gambits:
——————————————————————
“As you might recall, USA TODAY reporter Liz Szabo capped off a months-long investigation of Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski and his Burzynski Clinic with an excellent (and surprisingly long and detailed) report, complete with sidebars explaining why cancer experts don’t think that Burzysnki’s anecdotes are compelling evidence that his treatment, antineoplastons, has significant anticancer activity and a human interest story about patients whom Burzynski took to the cleaners”
——————————————————————
My question ?

GorskGeek, how do you know it was a:

“months-long investigation” ?

The article does NOT indicate HOW LONG the USA TODAY “investigation” took

From this, I can only conclude, as I did after 1st reading the article, that based on the comments of Dr. David H. Gorski “Orac”, that there must have been collusion between “The Skeptics™” and USA TODAY

Most of this, of course, is no news to my readers, as I’ve been writing about Dr. Burzynski on a fairly regular basis for over 8 months now
——————————————————————
GorskGeek goofs:
——————————————————————
“It’s just amazing to see it all boiled down into three articles and ten short videos in the way that Szabo and USA TODAY did, to be read by millions, instead of the thousands who read this blog“
——————————————————————
Thousands read his blog ?

Does he mean over the 2 year period he’s been writing about Burzynski ?

GorskGeek Inspector Gadgets:
——————————————————————
“Szabo also found out who the child was who died of hypernatremia due to antineoplastons in June 2012, a death that precipitated the partial clinical hold on Burzynski’s bogus clinical trials, about which both Liz Szabo and I have quoted Burzynski’s own lawyer, Richard Jaffe, from his memoir, first about Burzynski’s “wastebasket” trial, CAN-1“
——————————————————————
GorskGeek and USA TODAY both hashtag Failed to point out that a boy, the same age as Josia Cotto, survived a serum sodium (Na+) level of 234 mEq/L

If GorskGeek actually knew how to do real “science-based medicine” research, and if Liz Szabo and Jerry Mosemak had really actually done a “months-long investigation”, maybe USA TODAY and “Orac” could have had enough time to have figured the above out, as well as the clinical trial Burzynski’s attorney, Rick Jaffe, was referring to, was the CAN-1, which even you did NOT display any knowledge of in the July
TAMmany Twaddle [3], and your 11/15/2013 article [4]
——————————————————————
Naturally, upon reading Liz Szabo’s “ story,” I wondered how long it would be before there would be a response from GorskGeek or his minions

Both responses contain the same sorts of tropes, misinformation, and pseudononscience that I’ve come to expect from GorskGeek [1-2+4]

USA TODAY is biased and in the pocket of “The Skeptics™”

It was a “Shite Muslim Militia” piece
——————————————————————
GorskGeek dreamsicles:
——————————————————————
“I’ve deconstructed these, and many more, of Merola’s nonsense over the last two years”

“Odd how @BurzynskiMovie pretends I haven’t deconstructed his “evidence” in depth before”?

Really ?

GorskGeek is so much a monumental myopic Mythomaniac

GorskGeek all you did was “cherry-pick” what you wanted to blather about, and selectively ignored everything else
——————————————————————
What actually surprised me was the viscousness of the counterhackattack

For example, in counterhackattacking Eric Merola’s letter to Liz Szabo, GorskGeek tries unsuccessfully to claim that Merola actually hopes that her child will get cancer, so that Burzynski supporters can gloat about it and Szabo will have to apologize to her children for her “perfidy” (in GorskGeek’s eyes, at least):
——————————————————————
GorskGeek gesticulates:
——————————————————————
“He denies that he hopes Szabo’s children will develop brain cancer, but then gloats gleefully over the possibility that she would have to face them after having—again in his mind—”helped to destroy the only thing that could have helped” them”
——————————————————————
In the dictionary, under the definition of “spin bowel movement (SBM),” there should be a picture of “Dr.” (and I use that term very “loosely”) David Gorski

GorskGeek would have fit in holistically as the propagandist for Hitler, Lenin, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Stalin, etc.

Then, just when I thought GorskGeek couldn’t go any lower, he does, this time in his longer response on his blog
——————————————————————
“Eric Merola and Stanislaw Burzynski respond to the FDA findings and the USA TODAY story. Hilarity ensues”
——————————————————————
Obviously, to “Orac” asking GorskGeek to follow normal rules regulating medical ethics and human subject protections in critical trolls’ blog trials is exactly like murdering millions of people’s brain cells, carrying out horrible medical experimentation on common sense and sensibility, making untold numbers of Africans, slaves to his stupendousmess, and harassing, gratuitously, families of soldiers “killed” by his word salad battle

Didn’t anyone ever teach GorskGeek that you need to build up to that sort of climax ?

Of course, the big difference between Hitler’s propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels, unfortunately, is that compared to “Orac,” he had talent, and David GorskGeek does NOT

GorskGeek is a hack and is only funny by accident because he has no filters that tell him when he’s going way under the top

To him, Burzynski is an infidel

I do not share his belief, but, even worse, I have the temerity to criticize his god “Orac,” or, to mix metaphors shamelessly, to point out that GorskGeek has no clothes

Since I’ve dealt with so many of the tropes included in GorskGeek’s not-so-little rant, I hardly see the need to repeat myself

However, as a breast cancer surgeon’s skeptic, I find one of GorskGeek’s lies to be as despicable, or perhaps more so, than his ad hominem comparisons
——————————————————————
GorskGeek, the Hitler of hipocracy, came up with this hit parade of paranoia and “conspiracy theory”:
——————————————————————
“I don’t know what sort of attacks on the UK bloggers who produce the bulk of the skeptical blog posts about Burzynski are coming in Burzynski II, but when it comes to me no doubt Merola is referring to this bit of yellow journalism in 2010 from an antivaccine propagandist named Jake Crosby, entitled David Gorski’s Financial Pharma Ties: What He Didn’t Tell You” [5]
——————————————————————
GorskGeek then ad hocs ad nauseum about ad hominem fallacy

“In this fallacy, rather than addressing the actual evidence and science that demonstrate their favorite brand of woo to be nothing more than fairy dust, the idea is to preemptively attack and discredit the person“

“The ad hominem is not just insults or concluding that someone is ignorant because, well, they say ignorant things and make stupid arguments (in which case calling someone stupid or ignorant might just be drawing a valid, albeit impolitic, conclusion from observations of that person’s behavior), but rather arguing or insinuating that you shouldn’t accept someone’s arguments not because their arguments are weak but because they have this personal characteristic or that or belong to this group or that“ [6]
——————————————————————
GorskGeek, the huckster of hackery laments that “The Skeptics™” are subject to character assassination, NOT because of their “science-based medicine”, but, alas, for being biased, lying, cowards

So, he must justify that as to why he then ad hominems those who he harangues:
——————————————————————
“In Burzynski The Movie, Dr. Whitaker has his nose embedded so far up Dr. Burzynski’s rectum that Dr. Burzynski wouldn’t need a colonoscopy if Merola just strapped a light to Dr. Whitaker’s face“ [7]
——————————————————————

——————————————————————
“In the meantime, I realized that seeing Josh Duhamel stick his proboscis firmly up Burzynski’s posterior was not enough to explain the disturbance that I was feeling“ [8]
——————————————————————

——————————————————————
GorskiGeek seems to have an unhealthy infatuation with ASS

My suppositorsition is that GorskiGeek, the highfalutin’ He-Man of hypocrisy, does wax on, wax off, waxes phonetic about ASS, because he is the apex of ASSmuchness
——————————————————————
In essence, he denies the toxicity of water in terms I’ve never seen anyone try to downplay before:

Water… is toxic?

This was perhaps the most stunningly malicious use of emotion to manipulate the reader in any of the propaganda pieces against H2O in history
——————————————————————
GorskGeek claims:
——————————————————————
“Josia, as readers of Liz Szabo’s report will know, was the six year old boy with an inoperable brain tumor who died of hypernatremia (elevated sodium levels in the blood) as a result of Burzynski’s therapy“
——————————————————————
GorskGeek gassticulates:
——————————————————————
“As I pointed out last Friday and Szabo reported in her story, before his death Josia’s serum sodium was measured at 205 mEq/L, way above the normal range of 136-145 mEq/L and well into the lethal range”

“As I pointed out then, I’ve never seen a sodium level anywhere near that high“

“During my residency, the highest I recall ever seeing was maybe around 180 mEq/L”
——————————————————————
As I already pointed out previously in this article:

GorskGeek and USA TODAY both hashtag Failed to point out that a boy, the same age as Josia Cotto, survived a serum sodium (Na+) level of 234 mEq/L

GorskGeek claims that Josia died of hypernatremia (elevated sodium levels in the blood) as a result of Burzynski’s therapy

GorskGeek does NOT provide ANY citation(s), reference(s), and / or link(s) in support of his claim, and does NOT provide a copy of the autopsy

GorskGeek’s brain cells must be “sleeping in excess”, hence the symptoms of lethargy progressing ignorance of adverse events which approach critical black hole levels

Of course, none of this is new information
——————————————————————
GorskGeek hacks:
——————————————————————
“I also note that one of Burzynski’s most famous patients, Hannah Bradley, who with her partner Pete Cohen proclaims herself cured of her brain cancer, thanks to Burzynski, suffered some pretty serious toxicities from antineoplastons herself, including high fevers to 103.9° F, shaking chills, and severe rashes“

“Pete even documented how badly Hannah reacted to antineoplastons in his YouTube documentary Hannah’s Anecdote”
——————————————————————
GorskGeek flummoxes in that he erred to elucidate that the “rash” which Hannah
experienced, even entailed epilepsy anti-seizure medication [4]

GorskGeek gambols the gabroni gambit by giving nothing but glib reasons for his genetically challenged gestation of Hannah’s vlogs after gears up for Great Britain

Yes, GorskGeek is gabless about Hannah’s progress in the G.B. as a germinating gerbil, as far as flu or fever, perhaps fearing his failure to feature any fact-checking facilitation a fanboy of Fanectdotes should fittingly fictionalize
——————————————————————
The rest of GorskGeek’s rant reads like a greatest hits compilation from cancer hacks

You get the picture

That’s the whack-n-hack counterhackfensive trying to shore up Liz Szabo’s sorry article
——————————————————————
GorskGeek blowshard and long about the FDA Form 483′s findings, but does NOT heed his massive failure to be persuaded that:

“In Burzynski’s defense, Jaffe notes that inspection reports represent preliminary findings“

“The FDA has not yet issued final conclusions”
——————————————————————
Who would doubt that if GorskGeek were to blog about Burzynski’s 1997 criminal trial, that he would NOT list each and every one of the 34 counts of mail fraud, 40 counts of violating Food and Drug Administration regulations, and the 1 contempt-of-court charge; all “allegations”, which netted the U.S. Gubment absolutely NOTHING ? [9]
——————————————————————
GorskGeek idolizes the Burzynski Research Institute (BRI) IRB, because of Burzynski’s scientific publications, which indicate:
——————————————————————
2003 – Membership of the Institutional Review Board (IRB) was in agreement with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) [10]
——————————————————————
3/2004 – Membership of the Institutional Review Board (IRB) was in agreement with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) [10]
——————————————————————
9/2004 – Membership of the Institutional Review Board (IRB) was in agreement with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) [10]
——————————————————————
2004 – Membership of Institutional Review Board (IRB) was in compliance with FDA guidelines [10]
——————————————————————
6/2005 – Membership of the Institutional Review Board (IRB) was in agreement with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) [10]
——————————————————————
GorskGeek then does a piss-poor “slight of hand job”, jerking the reader off about Pseudoprogression, pseudoresponse, so-called pseudoprogression, and “One phenomena, termed Pseudo-Progression (psPD)”

GorskGeek falls flat face first for failing to show this phenomenon has factually happened [11]

GorskiGeek, looks like back to the drawerin’ board for you !
======================================
REFERENCES:
======================================
[1] – 11/18/2013 – Eric Merola and Stanislaw Burzynski respond to the FDA findings and the USA TODAY story. Hilarity ensues:
——————————————————————
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/11/18/eric-merola-and-stanislaw-burzynski-respond-to-the-fda-findings-and-the-usa-today-story-hilarity-ensues/
======================================
[2] – 11/18/2013 – The Burzynski Empire strikes
——————————————————————
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-burzynski-empire-strikes-back/
======================================
[3] – 11/11/2013 – “The Amazing Meeting” (I don’t think it means, what you think it says it means): 2 Intellectually and Ethically Challenged Individuals, Twaddle at TAM 2013:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/11/11/www-amazingmeeting-com-www-randi-org-lanyrd-com2013tam-forums-randi-orgforumdisplay-php/
======================================
[4] – 11/19/2013 – Critiquing: Stanislaw Burzynski in USA Today: Abuse of clinical trials and patients versus the ineffectiveness of the FDA and Texas Medical Board (Hyperactivity versus Hypernatremia, and Hannah Bradley):
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/11/19/httpscienceblogs-cominsolence20131115stanislaw-burzynski-in-usa-today-abuse-of-clinical-trials-and-patients-versus-the-ineffectiveness-of-the-fda-and-texas-medical-board-2/
======================================
[5] – 2/18/2013 – Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski’s cancer “success” stories:
——————————————————————
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/stanislaw-burzynskis-cancer-success-stories/
======================================
[6] – 6/14/2010 – In which Dr. Gorski once again finds himself a target of the “pharma shill” gambit
——————————————————————
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/in-which-i-am-once-again-in-the-crosshairs-of-age-of-autisms-pharma-shill-machine-gun/
======================================
[7] – 11/29/2011 – Burzynski The Movie: Is Stanislaw Burzynski a pioneering cancer researcher or a quack?:
——————————————————————
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/11/29/burzynski-the-movie-subtle-its-not/
======================================
[8] – 2/18/2013 – As Josh Duhamel shills for the Burzynski Clinic, Eric Merola prepares to carpet bomb the blogosphere with nonsense:
——————————————————————
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2013/02/18/as-josh-duhamel-shills-for-the-burzynski-clinic-eric-merola-prepares-to-carpet-bomb-the-blogosphere-with-nonsense/
======================================
[9] – 9/25/2013 – Critiquing: National Council Against Health Fraud, Inc. – NCAHF News: JURY NULLIFICATION THWARTS BURZYNSKI CONVICTION:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/25/critiquing-national-council-against-health-fraud-inc-ncahf-news-jury-nullification-thwarts-burzynski-conviction/
======================================
[10] – 7/2/2013 – Burzynski: Institutional Review Board (IRB):
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/02/burzynski-institutional-review-board-irb/
======================================
[11] – 11/20/2013 – Critiquing: Stanislaw Burzynski in USA Today: Abuse of clinical trials and patients versus the ineffectiveness of the FDA and Texas Medical Board (swell inflammation phenomenon):
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/11/20/httpscienceblogs-cominsolence20131115stanislaw-burzynski-in-usa-today-abuse-of-clinical-trials-and-patients-versus-the-ineffectiveness-of-the-fda-and-texas-medical-board-3/
======================================

Critiquing: Families run out of hope, money after cancer treatments (USA TODAY NEWS, NATION, Liz Szabo, USA TODAY)

USA TODAY
Liz Szabo
Michael Stravato
Jerry Mosemak
Robert Hanashiro

Before you write a Hack Piece
Check Your Facts Please
——————————————————————

——————————————————————
The 3rd, and thankfully final segment of USA TODAY’s “hit-piece” of irresponsible yellow journalism about Dr. Stanislaw R. Burzynski [1], contains the following:
——————————————————————
“Patients stay in hotels while visiting him”
——————————————————————
Pete Cohen made this movie about his and
Hannah Bradley’s trip to the Burzynski Clinic

It does NOT look like they stayed in a hotel [2]
——————————————————————
The article continues:
——————————————————————
“If children deteriorate, they often end up in the closest emergency room, said physician Jeanine Graf, director of the pediatric intensive care unit at Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston, who says she has treated at least a dozen of Burzynski’s patients“
——————————————————————
In the 2nd segment of USA TODAY’s yellow journalism “hit-piece,” the reader was advised that Burzynski had treated [3]:
——————————————————————
“ . . . more than 8,000 patients since 1977.”
——————————————————————
Physician Jeanine Graf, “says she has treated at least a dozen“ of Burzynski’s “more than 8,000 patients,”

This means that Dr. Graf has treated LESS THAN 0.15% of Burzynski’s patients
——————————————————————
The article indicates that:
——————————————————————
“Typically, Graf sees Burzynski’s patients after they have become unresponsive, unable to open their eyes or breathe on their own”

“Graf says she’s never seen Burzynski attending to them”
——————————————————————
Why would she ?

Does she ride in the ambulance to and from the clinic ?

As the article makes clear:

“While Burzynski often meets patients on their first trip to the clinic, Jaffe said he is”

“not the treating physician of the clinic’s patients”

“The doctors on Burzynski’s staff have admitting privileges at local hospitals and “attend to patients as needed,” Jaffe said”
——————————————————————
And she continues:
——————————————————————
“And describing her personal experience with Burzynski’s patients, Graf says,”

“I’ve never seen one survive long-term.”
——————————————————————
Are we supposed to believe that pediatric physician Jeanine Graf keeps track of the “more than 8,000 patients” that the article claims Burzynski has treated ?
——————————————————————
Continuing on, the article also claims:
——————————————————————
“The unlucky ones end up broke, spending everything on medicine, airfare, hotel rooms and meals while in Houston, Graf says“

“Burzynski’s attorney, Richard Jaffe, notes that all cancer care is expensive”

“I think the clinic’s policies are a lot more charitable than the big institutions,” Jaffe says”
——————————————————————
6/25/2013 – Medical Bills Are the Biggest Cause of US Bankruptcies [4]

“Bankruptcies resulting from unpaid medical bills will affect nearly 2 million people this year—making health care the No. 1 cause of such filings . . . according to new data”

“. . . estimates that households containing 1.7 million people will file for bankruptcy protection this year”

“Even outside of bankruptcy, about 56 million adults—more than 20 percent of the population between the ages of 19 and 64—will still struggle with health-care-related bills this year . . .”

“Despite the anticipated 2013 dip, such bankruptcies represent about three out of every five filings”
——————————————————————
2007 – How Many Americans Go Bankrupt Due to Medical Purposes Each Year? [5]

“2007, a Harvard study shows that at least 60% of bankruptcies are related to medical bills“

“Even people with health insurance are filing bankruptcy”

“Insurance premiums, deductibles, co-pay, and out of pocket expenses cause medical bills to drown individuals and families in medical debt”

“Harvard also discovered that 75% of those filing bankruptcy for medical reasons had health insurance“

“It is clear that having health insurance is no guarantee against carrying debt related to health care”
——————————————————————
Burzynski has treated more than 8,000 patients since 1977

8,000 divided by 36 years equals an average of:

222 patients per year

Burzynski is obviously NOT the problem
——————————————————————
Liz Szabo, Michael Stravato, Jerry Mosemak, and Robert Hanashiro

Don’t quit your day jobs

USA TODAY needs to generate readership somehow !!!
——————————————————————
Sarcasm . . . deal with it
======================================
REFERENCES:
======================================
[1] – 11/15/2013
——————————————————————
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/15/jeanine-graf-cancer-children/2994675/
======================================
[2] – Hannah’s Anectdote:
——————————————————————

======================================
[3] – 11/16/2013 – Critiquing: Doctor accused of selling false hope to families (USA TODAY NEWS, NATION, Liz Szabo, USA TODAY):
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/11/16/httpwww-usatoday-comstorynewsnation20131115stanislaw-burzynski-cancer-controversy2994561/
======================================
[4] – 06/25/13 2:29 PM ET—By CNBC’s Dan Mangan @danpostman
——————————————————————
http://www.cnbc.com/id/100840148
======================================
[5] – 2007 – Written by James Hirby | Fact checked by The Law Dictionary staff
——————————————————————
http://thelawdictionary.org/article/how-many-americans-go-bankrupt-due-to-medical-purposes-each-year/
======================================

Critiquing: Doctor accused of selling false hope to families (USA TODAY NEWS, NATION, Liz Szabo, USA TODAY)

I gave Liz Szabo and USA TODAY the chance to act like a Spike Lee joint and “Do the Right Thing”, the same day their article came out [1]

I gave them the opportunity to prove that their article was a legitimate piece of journalism with some semblance of integrity, and NOT just akin to one of “The Skeptics™ phoned-in “rubber-stamped” yellow journalism hit pieces

Instead, it seems that Liz Szabo and / or USA TODAY decided to act as if they had rolled a Spike Lee joint

I sent an e-mail with 2 editorial corrections, and only one (correcting Lisa Merritt’s comment
link from taking the reader to the 1999 Mayo Clinic report instead of to her comments), was corrected [2]

The 2nd correction which they #FAILED to do, earns them well deserved INSOLENCE
——————————————————————
The article claims:
——————————————————————
“Burzynski, 70, calls his drugs “antineoplastons” and says he has given them to more than 8,000 patients since 1977.”
——————————————————————

——————————————————————
However, if you select the “8,000 patients” link, the referenced page does NOT indicate that at all [2]
——————————————————————

——————————————————————
It advises:
——————————————————————
“That same year, Dr. Burzynski founded his clinic in Houston where he’s since treated over 8,000 patients.” [3]
——————————————————————

——————————————————————
Nowhere does it indicate that he “treated 8,000 patients” with antineoplastons
——————————————————————

——————————————————————
The question that Liz Szabo and USA TODAY should answer, is:

1. Who is your “fact-checker”, and
2. are they smarter than a 5th grader ?
——————————————————————
In fact, Burzynski’s 2002 Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filing advises:

” … in 1997, his medical practice was expanded to include traditional cancer treatment options such as chemotherapy, gene targeted therapy, immunotherapy and hormonal therapy in response to FDA requirements that cancer patients utilize more traditional cancer treatment options in order to be eligible to participate in the Company’s Antineoplaston clinical trials” [4]
——————————————————————
The article continues:
——————————————————————
“Individual success stories can be misleading, said Arthur Caplan, a professor and head of the division of bioethics at NYU Langone Medical Center”
——————————————————————
The question Arthur Caplan should be asking is:

Why has the United States Food and Drug Administration required Burzynski’s clinical trial patients to fail conventional therapies; such as surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation, BEFORE they are allowed to be treated with antineoplaston therapy ?

If the F.D.A. did NOT impose these restrictions upon Burzynski’s clinical trials, then the question Arthur Caplan raises would be moot
——————————————————————
The article quotes Dr. Jan Buckner as saying:
——————————————————————
“When I hear a story that is way out of the norm, the first question I ask is,

‘OK, is the diagnosis even correct?‘ ”

“Buckner said”

“If the diagnosis wasn’t right to start with, it doesn’t matter what the treatment was.”

“Brain tumors are notoriously difficult to diagnose, Buckner says”

“When dealing with rare brain cancer, doctors may disagree about how to interpret imaging results up to 40% of the time”
——————————————————————
I wonder if Dr. Jan Buckner would agree with David Gorski; who is a BREAST cancer oncology specialist, and NOT a BRAIN cancer oncology specialist, who has the presumptiveness to speculate that 3 different medical opinions could have misdiagnosed Tori Moreno in August 1998; who was diagnosed with a very large tumor, about 3 inches in the largest diameter and located in the brain stem, which was too risky for surgery, and about which her parents were told by ALL 3, that Tori’s brain cancer was fatal and, she would die in a few days or at the most, 2-6 weeks, and that there was nothing that could be done, and was finally put on Burzynski’s antineoplaston therapy in October, when she was about 3 ½ months old, and in such condition that they were afraid that she might die at any time, David H. Gorski, M.D., Ph.D., FACS; who claims, “I do know cancer science” , has the audacity, because of his “book learnin'” has the temerity to postulate his “science-based medicine theory” that Miller’s Children at Long Beach Memorial misdiagnosed Tori Moreno’s inoperable stage 4 BSG

David Gorski has the gall to profer that City of Hope misdiagnosed Tori Moreno’s inoperable stage 4 brain stem glioma

David Gorski has the chutzpah to pontificate that Dr. Fred Epstein in New York misdiagnosed Tori Moreno’s inoperable stage IV brainstem glioma [5]
——————————————————————
The article then quotes Peter Adamson, chair of the Children’s Oncology Group:
——————————————————————
“But these therapies may have delayed benefits, taking weeks or months to shrink a tumor“

“So patients treated by Burzynski may credit him for their progress, just because he was the last doctor to treat them, says Peter Adamson, chair of the Children’s Oncology Group, an NCI-supported research network that conducts clinical trials in pediatric cancer“

“Conventional cancer treatment can also cause tumors to swell temporarily, due to inflammation“

“A patient who isn’t familiar with this phenomenon may assume her tumor is growing“

“When that swelling subsides, patients may assume it’s because of Burzynski, Adamson says”
——————————————————————
This is laughable

In support of this “phenomenon” , the article provides a link to a Canadian web-site [6]

The site posits:
——————————————————————
“RT/TMZ is now widely practiced and the standard of care for appropriately selected patients, we are learning more about the consequences of RT/TMZ”

“One phenomena, termed Pseudo-Progression (psPD)…”
——————————————————————
The problem is that this only applies to “Glioblastoma Multiforme (GBM)”, and the article provides NO proof whatsoever, that any of Burzynski’s “Glioblastoma Multiforme (GBM)” patients have taken “RT/TMZ”
——————————————————————
Additionally, the site cites the reference as:

Sanghera, Perry, Sahgal, et al., “Sunnybrook Health Sciences Odette Cancer Centre” (in press, Canadian Journal of Neuroscience)

(“In press” refers to journal articles which have been accepted for publication, but have not yet been published)

However, the journal article in question was published 1/2010, so it has NOT been “in press” for over 3 years and 7 months [7]

Get your act together, aye, Canada !
——————————————————————
The article rants and raves on and on about FDA inspection reports from as far back as 1998, but at least they did quote Richard A. Jaffe:

“In Burzynski’s defense, Jaffe notes that inspection reports represent preliminary findings”

“The FDA has not yet issued final conclusions”
——————————————————————
The article posts this ridiculous claim:
——————————————————————
“Yet the National Cancer Institute says there is no evidence that Burzynski has cured a single patient, or even helped one live longer“
——————————————————————
That’s NOT what this seems to suggest [8]
——————————————————————
Then the article quotes pediatric oncologist Peter Adamson, a professor of pediatrics and pharmacology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, in what will no doubt soon be known as a “classic”:
——————————————————————
“He’s a snake oil salesman,” says pediatric oncologist Peter Adamson, a professor of pediatrics and pharmacology at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia”
——————————————————————
All I’d like to know is, which rock did this clown crawl out from under ?

Dr. Adamson, please advise which “snake oil” has been granted Orphan Drug Designation (“ODD”) from the United States Food and Drug Administration [9], and which “snake oil” has been approved for, and used in, phase III clinical trials ? [10]
——————————————————————
Q: Is it, it the phase 2 trial is finished ?

A: “Mhmm”

Q: but they’re still accepting people ?

A: “Yeah”

Q: on more like a special ?

A: “Special basis, and, um, sometimes compassionate grounds“

A: “(compassion exception)”

A: “Uh, exceptions“

Q: That’s normal ?

A: “Yes”
“So”

A: “(Yes I guess it is a funding issue ?)”

Q: Right

A: “(Like FDA, during the 2nd phase of clinical trials they found the data to be, real, real one, and they gave him the ok to go for 3rd phase of clinical trials, but just to go through this process you would probably need $100,000)”
——————————————————————

——————————————————————
Oh, wait !!

Dr. Adamson, when you say “snake oil”, I take it you are referring to the low-dose chemotherapy that Burzynski uses ?

Dr. Adamson, do you know what a “hack” is ?
——————————————————————
In regards to the Merritt’s, the article has:
——————————————————————
“The couple say that Burzynski misled them about the type of treatment that would be offered, as well as the cost”

My questions about the Merritt’s are:

1. Where is their complaint to the Texas Medical Board ?

2. Where is their lawsuit ? Couldn’t they find an attorney to take their case pro bono ?
——————————————————————
The article continues:
——————————————————————
“Yet even Jaffe has acknowledged that the trial — now in its 17th year — was more about politics than science”

“In his 2008 memoirs, Galileo’s Lawyer, Jaffe called it “a joke.””

“”It was all an artifice, a vehicle we and the FDA created to legally give the patients Burzynski’s treatment,” Jaffe said“
——————————————————————
What Liz Szabo and her friends at USA TODAY fail to let the readers know, is that this only applied to one trial:
——————————————————————
Burzynski’s lawyer is obviously referring to the CAN-1 clinical trial mentioned in Burzynski’s 11/25/1997 Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filing [11]
——————————————————————
One trial that is retrospective is CAN-1 Clinical Trial
——————————————————————
CAN-1 PHASE II STUDY OF ANTINEOPLASTONS A10 AND AS2-1 IN

PATIENTS WITH REFRACTORY MALIGNANCIES

133 patients
——————————————————————
Clinical trial of patients treated by Dr. Burzynski through 2/23/1996
——————————————————————
FDA has indicated it will not accept data generated by this trial since it was not a wholly prospective one
——————————————————————
The article continues in the same vein:
——————————————————————
“In an interview, Burzynski said developing new drugs is complex and takes time”

“Yet the FDA has approved 108 cancer drugs since Burzynski began his trial”
——————————————————————
Ms. Szabo and “pals” conveniently “forgets” to educate their audience that Burzynski was using Fleming’s One-sample multiple testing procedure for phase II clinical trials [13], which requires that if the 1st 20 patients meet certain criteria, 20 additional patients are added [14]
——————————————————————
“Well, we cannot publish until the time is right” (laughs)

Yeah

“If you would like to publish the results of, of a
10 year survival, for instance”

Mmm

“Which we have
Nobody has over 10 year survival in
malignant brain tumor, but we do, and if you like to do it right, it takes time to prepare it, and that’s what we do now
What we publish so far
We publish numerous, uh, publications which were, interim reports when we are still continuing clinical trials
Now we are preparing, a number of publications for final reports“ [15]
——————————————————————
Then Fran Visco, president of the National Breast Cancer Coalition makes an outlandish statement, which is quoted in the article:
——————————————————————
“Fran Visco, president of the National Breast Cancer Coalition, describes the FDA’s tolerance of Burzynski as “outrageous.””

“They have put people at risk for a long time,” says Visco, an attorney and breast cancer survivor”

“That’s completely unacceptable”

“How can anyone look at these facts and believe that there is a real clinical trial going on … rather than just using the FDA and the clinical trial system to make money?”
——————————————————————
I have a suggestion for Ms. Visco

Take your hypocrisy and ask the American Cancer Society if they are still engaged in this kind of activity:

1. AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY: More Interested In Accumulating Wealth Than Saving Lives [15]

2. National Cancer Institute and American Cancer Society: Criminal Indifference to Cancer Prevention and Conflicts of Interest [16]
——————————————————————
Then, ask the American Cancer Society, why is it that 10 years ago, estimated breast cancer deaths were expected to be 39,800 (15%), and this year it was 39,620 (14%), which is ONLY 180 LESS than 10 years ago ?
——————————————————————
Estimated Breast Cancer Deaths (Women)-USA
——————————————————————
2013☝39,620 (14%)
2012👇39,510 (14%)
2011👇39,520 (15%)
2010👇39,840 (15%)
2009👇40,170 (15%)
2008☝40,480 (15%)
2007👇40,460 (15%)
2006☝40,970 (15%)
2005👇40,410 (15%)
2004☝40,110 (15%)
2003☝39,800 (15%)
2002 – 39,600 (15%)
—————————————————————–
American Cancer Society Cancer Facts & Figures (2002-2013)
—————————————————————–
And then ask the American Cancer Society, why is it that 10 years ago, the estimated NEW breast cancer cases were expected to be 211,300 (32%), and this year it was 232,340 (29%), which is 21,340 MORE than it was 10 years ago ?
——————————————————————
Estimated New Breast Cancer (Women) – USA
——————————————————————
2013☝232,340 (29%)
2012👇226,870 (29%)
2011☝238,480 (30%)
2010☝207,090 (28%)
2009☝192,370 (27%)
2008☝182,460 (26%)
2007👇178,480 (26%)
2006☝212,920 (31%)
2005👇211,240 (32%)
2004☝215,900 (32%)
2003☝211,300 (32%)
2002_-_203,500 (31%)
—————————————————————–
American Cancer Society Cancer Facts & Figures (2002-2013)
——————————————————————
And after that, ask Susan G. Komen how much is spent on legal action to protect her brand, compared to how much is spent on breast cancer research and prevention ?
——————————————————————
Visco, the breast cancer advocate

“I do NOT know why it took YOU so long.”
——————————————————————
The article continues with:
——————————————————————
“Yet hypernatremia is one of antineoplastons’ most common side effects, known to doctors for two decades”
——————————————————————
Yet, “The Skeptics™” refuse to discuss:
——————————————————————
2/13/2013 – The frequency, cost, and clinical outcomes of hypernatremia in patients hospitalized to a comprehensive cancer center

Over 3 month period in 2006 re 3,446 patients, most of the hypernatremia (90 %) was acquired during hospital stay [19]

Division of Internal Medicine, UT MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA

Department of General Internal Medicine, University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center

Division of Endocrinology, Mayo Clinic
——————————————————————
9/1999 – The changing pattern of hypernatremia in hospitalized children [20]

Department of Pediatrics, Texas Children’s Hospital, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, USA
——————————————————————
So, after all that, my question for USA TODAY is, does Liz Szabo, Michael Stravato, Jerry Mosemak or Robert Hanashiro have a
journalism degree ?

Because if any of them do, the institution they obtained it from most be so proud of this piece of “fish wrap” you produced

Thank you, USA TODAY, for censoring my 18 comments

I guess you must be (“intellectual”) cowards

At least Forbes had the GRAPEFRUITS to post some of my comments
——————————————————————
You’ve just been served, INSOLENTLY
——————————————————————
USA TODAY, GONE TOMORROW
——————————————————————

======================================
REFERENCES:
======================================
[1] – 11/15/2013 – USA TODAY NEWS, NATION
Doctor accused of selling false hope to families
Liz Szabo, USA TODAY
——————————————————————
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/15/stanislaw-burzynski-cancer-controversy/2994561/
======================================
[2] – Mayo Clinic – 1999 – report: Lisa Merritt
——————————————————————
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/816819-mayo-clinic-1999-report.html
======================================
[3] – 2012 – former Burzynski web-site screenshots, Pg 3 of 62;
——————————————————————

Click to access burzynski_fdauntitled_promo_2012.pdf

======================================
[4] – 4/26/2013 – Burzynski: FDA requirements that cancer patients utilize more traditional cancer treatment options in order to be eligible to participate in the Company’s Antineoplaston CLINICAL TRIALS:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/26/burzynski-fda-requirements-that-cancer-patients-utilize-more-traditional-cancer-treatment-options-in-order-to-be-eligible-to-participate-in-the-companys-antineoplaston-clinical-trials/
======================================
[5] – 11/14/2013 – Critiquing: Why we fight for patients (Why we fight your patience) TAM 2013, TAM2013, “The Amazing Meeting” 2013 #TAM2013 http://www.theamazingmeeting.com
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/11/14/tam-2013-tam2013-tam2013-the-amazing-meeting-2013-the-amazing-meeting-httptheamazingmeeting-com-httpwww-theamazingmeeting-com/
======================================
[6] – Phenomenon – Brain Tumour Foundation of Canada
——————————————————————
http://www.braintumour.ca/1649/ask-the-expert-psuedo-progression-gbm
======================================
[7] – Pseudoprogression following chemoradiotherapy for glioblastoma multiforme
Can J Neurol Sci. 2010 Jan;37(1):36-42
——————————————————————
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20169771/
======================================
[8] – 9/19/2013 – Critiquing: National Cancer Institute (NCI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) CancerNet “fact sheet” :
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/19/critiquing-national-cancer-institute-nci-at-the-national-institutes-of-health-nih-cancernet/
======================================
[9] – FDA Orphan Drug Designation
——————————————————————

Click to access PressRelease_12022008_BZYR(2).pdf

======================================
[10] – 11/7/2013 – Pete Cohen chats with Sonali Patil, Ph.D., Research Scientist at The Burzynski Clinic:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/11/07/pete-cohen-chats-with-sonali-patil-ph-d-research-scientist-at-the-burzynski-clinic/
======================================
[11] – 7/9/2013 – Burzynski: The Original 72 Phase II Clinical Trials:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/07/09/burzynski-the-original-72-phase-ii-clinical-trials/
======================================
[12] – 8/21/2013 – Critiquing David H. Gorski, MD, PhD, FACS http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/editorial-staff/david-h-gorski-md-phd-managing-editor/
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/08/21/critiquing-david-h-gorski-md-phd-facs-www-sciencebasedmedicine-orgeditorial-staffdavid-h-gorski-md-phd-managing-editor/
======================================
[13] – 2003 – pg. 94
——————————————————————

Click to access 960.pdf

======================================
[14] – 3/1982 – Biometrics 1982; 38: 143-51
——————————————————————
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7082756/
======================================
[15] – 11/9/2013 – Pete Cohen chats with Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski – Interview #2:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/11/09/pete-cohen-chats-with-dr-stanislaw-burzynski-interwiew-2/
======================================
[16] – AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY: More Interested In Accumulating Wealth Than Saving Lives
——————————————————————

Click to access acs.pdf

======================================
[17] – 9/11/2013 – National Cancer Institute and American Cancer Society: Criminal Indifference to Cancer Prevention and Conflicts of Interest:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/09/11/national-cancer-institute-and-american-cancer-society-criminal-indifference-to-cancer-prevention-and-conflicts-of-interest/
—————————————————————
[18] – 11/13/2013 – The War on Cancer (I don’t think it means, what you think it says it means) #Winning?
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/11/13/httpcancer-orgacsgroupscontentepidemiologysurveilancedocumentsdocumentacspc-036845-pdf/
======================================
[19] – 4/24/2013 – Burzynski: HYPERNATREMIA:
——————————————————————
https://stanislawrajmundburzynski.wordpress.com/2013/04/24/burzynski-hypernatremia/
======================================
[20] – 9/1999 – Pediatrics. 1999 Sep;104(3 Pt 1):435-9
——————————————————————
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10469766/
======================================

September 28, 2013 “The Skeptics™” Burzynski discussion: By Bob Blaskiewicz – 2:19:51

——————————————————————
All comments by Professor Robert J. (Bob) Blaskiewicz of University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire “fame” should be considered as likely LIES until such time as he keeps his word to respond on this blog, to criticism of him on this blog
——————————————————————
“I hope somebody is writing all this down out there, so that we can go back and look at these claims later, right ?”
——————————————————————
1:19:00
——————————————————————
Seriously, Bob ?

Do you really think one of “The Skeptics™” was going to write all this down, when none of them showed that they had written down much of anything of much note about Burzynski 2 when they attended the screenings ? 🙂
——————————————————————
*Some words may or may not be missing, but it doesn’t take away from the final result
I will be adding separate critiques that break this down into manageable parts, but wanted to have entire video comments altogether here
——————————————————————
(0:04:38)
——————————————————————
Are you there ?
——————————————————————
Yes
——————————————————————
Okay, we might as well get started if were going to do this
——————————————————————
Okay
——————————————————————
(0:05:00)
——————————————————————
Alright, so ummm I guess we can start with uhhh bit of a conversation [0]

Uhhh

You’ve been on the Burzynski Hashtag for a long time – what’s you’re motivation ?
——————————————————————
Well as I put in my about page, I agreed with the juror that he was neither guilty or innocent [8]

So, so since I see all this opposition by these Skeptics, and I see that the they’re getting all of their facts straight

(Freudian sarcasm slip)

I decided to take the position of being a Skeptic Skeptic

In other words I am skeptical of Skeptics who do not fact-check their information before they post it on social media
——————————————————————
Okay
——————————————————————
And since I see ahhh y’all pretty much trying to take over the net with y’all’s information I decided to come back and correct all the false information that was being put out by other Skeptics
——————————————————————
So what information have Skeptics posted that they uhhh that they missed that demonstrates that Burzynski’s uhhh treatments are effective ?
——————————————————————
(0:06:00)
——————————————————————
What, what have we missed ?
——————————————————————
Well the major issue is that the FDA’s own information says if phase 3 trials are approved – phase 2 trials is to see if there’s evidence of effectiveness

And so if phase 3 trials are approved, that means you’ve provided evidence of effectiveness

That’s the FDA’s own information – I have that clearly on my blog [9]

Also the FDA has given Burzynski uhhh Orphan Drug Designation in 2004 for uhhh brainstem glioma and then in 2009 for all gliomas [10]

So that must mean that there is evidence of effectiveness, otherwise I don’t think they would be doing that

0:07:00
——————————————————————
Well okay, uh one of the issues that Skeptics have with Burzynski is that in order to, let’s say, elevate uh the profile of his drug, in order to make sure that everybody who needs it can get, is to complete a phase 3 uh trial uh he started uh I believe was it just the one, right ?

Uhmmm, and that’s gone nowhere

In fact, it was withdrawn this I think within the last week

It doesn’t look like its going to happen, and this is, you know, for all the the phase 1 and phase 2 trials, those are very preliminary trials
——————————————————————
(0:08:00)
——————————————————————
Uhmmm, the phase 3 is is will be the gold standard, and also the bare minimum that that the larger medical community will accept uhhh as evidence, so it’s like you’ve lowered the bar for for evidence in a way that that you know oncologists don’t
——————————————————————
Well the issue is he was given 2 phase 3 trials that we know of

One was on uh Clinical Trials . gov – the one about eye cancer
——————————————————————
The the
——————————————————————
The vision cancer
——————————————————————
Right
——————————————————————
And then the other one was not posted on there, but then again the FDA has said, and I posted this on my blog because I specifically contacted and asked them and they said we don’t post all clinical trials on our web-site [11]
——————————————————————
(Correction: NCI)
——————————————————————
And so he obviously had that other one about brainstem glioma, that he was trying to get started [12]

But the other issue is that Skeptics have posted on there that he could not get that accelerated approval until he had published a phase 2 trial and that is exactly not the case because other drugs have been given accelerated approval before their results were published in phase 2 clinical trial publications, cuz, so that question remains as well [13]

(0:09:00)
——————————————————————
9:13
——————————————————————
So, do you think that there is a uh uh conspiracy to keep Burzynski from publishing ?
——————————————————————
Well, what we do know is that in the movie, Merola showed that one page rejection from The Lancet
——————————————————————
Right
——————————————————————
where Burzynski was trying to show his results from like 8 to 16 years, and they said we think your uh publication would be seen best elsewhere, or some ridiculous statement like that

And so, I thought that funny of The Lancet [14]

Of course, I understand their 2nd response, which came out, which Eric posted on his Facebook page, y’all, that y’all have talked about – that, you know, they’re busy, they get a lot of
submissions
——————————————————————
(0:10:00)
——————————————————————
I understand that, so obviously he would have to look for a different publication for both of those, things he’s trying to get published
——————————————————————
Clarification: Burzynski and Tsuda
——————————————————————
Right

So, uhmmm, as far as I understand it The Lancet, uhhh the the question of The Lancet publication ehhh is par for the course, that most people are, when they get a speedy rejection from a uh uh, uh journal, are actually uh grateful, because that means there allowed to go ahead and submit their material to another journal more quickly and get it out there

Uhm, but the reaction that we saw on the side of the Burzynski camp was that, see, they’ll never publish us
——————————————————————
(0:11:00)
——————————————————————
Uhm, which is, eg, taken as far as I can tell as evidence of a conspiracy or that his name is is poison uh I mean, I think it is, but uhmmm, that wasn’t indicated in the in the rejection letter in order to uh claim that it is is to go beyond the evidence which again we’re not really willing to do

So, uhmmm what is the the ration the the something that I think a lot of of a lot of The Skeptics have been curious about when it comes to your your your blog and your behavior on-line uhhh is that that that, that the format of your blog does not make sense to us, we don’t understand exactly what you’re trying to do with it

Could you kind of clarify that for us because it’s uhhh long and it’s it’s intense and there’s a lot of emotion behind it but we don’t understand exactly, what it’s supposed to mean
——————————————————————
(0:12:00)
——————————————————————
Well a lot of the time I’m making fun of y’all’s favorite oncologist, the way he words his blogs, and uhmmm I cite specifically from the FDA, from from the National Cancer Institute, from these other scientific sources, from scientific publications

I give people specific information so they can fact-check me, unlike a lot of The Skeptics who just go out there and say things and publish things on social media, they provide no back-up for their uhhh sayings

And so when I critique an oncologist or any other Skeptic I always provide source material so people can always fact-check me and I specifically said that people should fact-check everything ummm that the oncologist should say because he has, I’ve proven him to be frequently incorrect about his information and misleading
——————————————————————
(0:13:00)
——————————————————————
And so I’ve tried to add those things and allow people to search, on specific things like publications, or what I posted about The Lancet, or specifically about The Skeptics, or specifically about the oncologist

So whenever I see something posted new on Twitter, by y’all, sometimes I’ll check it out and sometimes I won’t, and sometimes I’ll comment on it
——————————————————————
Alright, ah have you read The Other Burzynski Patient Group ?
——————————————————————
I was, on there just yesterday to see some more of your post on there [15]
——————————————————————
So, ahmmm what is your response say to the story of Amelia Saunders ?
——————————————————————
Well the thing is, when you accepted this hangout, I published my newest blog article and I specifically listed all the information I had critiqued from you previously including Amelia, and I posted the specific Twitter responses by BurzynskiMovie; which is probably Eric, to your issues with Amelia, and he disagrees with what the oncologist posted, and so I pretty much let his Twitter responses stand to what the oncologist said [2]
——————————————————————
0:14:24
——————————————————————
Okay, what part of, what did I get wrong ?
——————————————————————
Well I also did a critique of the newspaper story that was put out about Amelia in the U.K. [16]

And they had 2, 2 patients that were dealt with

And
——————————————————————
Uh was that Amelia and Luna ?
——————————————————————
I believe, yes
——————————————————————
Luna was the other one, correct [17]
——————————————————————
And one of the patients, Burzynski has specifically published in one of his scientific publications that maximum dosage is not reached for a month
——————————————————————
0:15:00
——————————————————————
So if someone, so if someone only goes in there and has treatment for a month, they’re not even, you know, they’re finally going to reach the uh maximum dosage [18]

And I think that was maybe the case with Luna, I think she was only there for a month

Oh, I, you’re talking, oh this is one of the very 1st ones that we did on the, on the site

Uhmmm, oh, her name is, her name escapes me at the moment

Um, but she wasn’t there for for very long but uh her condition deteriorated very rapidly

Uhmmm, and one of the questions that we had, we raised, is is, you know, you you don’t need to reach full dosage ’cause the the full dosage for these ANP seem to be pretty high, at least the sodium load that that that patients are asked to to carry, or required to carry if they they go on it

And we wondered if the sodium load was ah to great for someone who has a brain tumor, I mean uh, you know uh sodium load will increase your blood pressure, and these people have extra things in their brains that probably won’t react well to swelling, right, and and wont react well to pressure, so we were wondering, if in fact you don’t have to reach the full dosage in order to have uh severe side effects
——————————————————————
(0:16:00)
——————————————————————
Ummm, you know maybe you haven’t reached a therapeutic dose level, but that doesn’t mean that it didn’t have an effect on her

And you can clearly tell, that, you know in the videos, well at least the videos before the family took it down, that she was lethargic and a little bit out of it, she uh the the difference in her conscious state was no noticeable for anyone to see

Ummm, to, you know where she had been up and about to in her bed kind of slurring and and, and and and, in fact just disoriented, just looked like someone had taken the piss out of her
——————————————————————
0:17:00
——————————————————————
I mean, ummm, so that’s, that one, ummm, you know the critique that, reaching therapeutic levels and having a biological effect on someone are are clearly different things in her case

Uhmmm, now I never went on you know on to say ummm that uh she had uh reached therapeutic levels

Uhmmm, I I think as far as I went was that she went, she paid her $30,000 dollars and then she died

Uhmmm, and and and what part of that’s not true
——————————————————————
Well my only thing is, uh, we know that sometimes he will go to a maximum dosage, or you know, the suggested dosage, but he will back down off it, in fact in the uh adverse effects you mentioned those are specifically adverse effects mentioned in his publications, and when that happens normally they will subside within 24 to 48 hours is what it says once you take them off the treatment and let, you know, those conditions take care of themselves, and then you will slowly raise the medication again [19]

0:18:33
——————————————————————
So, you know, it just didn’t tell, if only one month of treatment was enough to even start to do anything for her [20]
——————————————————————
Okay, so, um, going back to Amelia, um, some of the the most um I think the most serious charges is that we see a uh repeatedly in his uh uh stories of his patients, um those are all cited, those are all backed uh by, you know, um at least as good as anything the Burzynski Patient Group has ever done
——————————————————————
0:19:11
——————————————————————
Uhmmm, something that we see over and over are patients reporting over and over that signs of getting worse are signs if getting better

Um, in particular a, uh report that’s very common from from patients is that the center of their solid tumors are breaking up

One of the problems that we we we see is that that is more frequently a sign of ischemic necrosis that the tumor has outgrown its blood supply and that it’s dying on the inside

And when you see something like a 5th of the patients who we’ve been able to to document, reporting this excitedly, we get extremely concerned about what’s happening
——————————————————————
0:20:02
——————————————————————
Uhmmm, what part of that is not absolutely terrifying to you
——————————————————————
Well the thing is, the FDA has approved phase 3 <strong[12]and also given them the Orphan Drug Designation, which means they should have some knowledge about what’s going on, I would think [10]

Plus we don’t know for sure, we’ve heard about, ummm, some of the things supposedly the oncologist has talked about, which is cutting off the blood flow, to the tumor, which is something that some uhhh drugs can do, and I think that’s one of the things Burzynski has tried to do, ah he’s specifically mentioned it in his personalized treatment

But I don’t know for sure if it’s also something that’s done with the ANP’s in just the clinical trials environment
——————————————————————
0:20:02
——————————————————————
So, that could be a possibility
——————————————————————
Well, the the yeah I’ve never seen anyone say that the purpose of the antineoplastons is to cause uhhh, you know, to restrict the blood flow to the tumor and and and uh cause it to die that way, which is certainly one therapeutic approach that’s been, that’s been floated and research has been done on uh and might even be promising and uh what he’s saying is that cancer is caused by a lack of antineoplastons in the system and that basically what he is doing is antineoplaston uh uh supplement therapy uh rath, what’s the word I’m looking for, uhm uh, replacement therapy

Uh and there isn’t a doctor on the planet, uh not a medical specialist on the planet, who, I, who has identified at at as a contributing factor as a contributor to cancer or antineo or lack of antineoplastons

So
——————————————————————
Well
——————————————————————
Why isn’t he, you know, you understand that these doctors, ummm like nothing is true or false because a doctor says it is true or false
——————————————————————
0:22:26
——————————————————————
Uhmmm it’s it’s it but when the entire medical community uhhh who are des are desperately are are every bit as tired of seeing patients die uhmmm and seeing patients suffer or as anyone else’s families are you you imagine what an oncologist sees in that office over the course of of a year and there’s going to be unimaginable suffering

I’m sure that they’re tired of that

And that they would, you know, that if there was the slightest hint that antineoplaston deficiency was a cause of cancer that it would make it into the literature, with or without Burzynski
——————————————————————
0:23:10
——————————————————————
Uhhh ummm, why should we trust him when he has uh the sole uh the only person who had identified antineoplastons as a contributor to cancer when he is the sole manufacturer of the of the therapy uh when he is the uh sole prescriber of the therapy and when he is, where the sole distributor of the therapy from his pharmacy
——————————————————————
Well what I find interesting about these other doctors is like like the doctors mentioned in the movie and BBC Panorama’s report and in some of these newspaper articles where they are mentioned again is that these doctors never do a review of Burzynski’s scientific publications and including our favorite oncologist who refuses to do so [20]

Uhhh [21]
——————————————————————
0:24:10
——————————————————————
He’s read everything

I think
——————————————————————

Oh yeah he says he’s read everything but uh you know he claims that he’s uhmmm reviewed, reviewed uh Burzynski’s personalized gene targeted therapy but he, but then just a few months ago he admitted, you know, I don’t know where Burzynski says which genes are targeted by antineoplastons [22]

And I pointed out which specific publications that Burzynski published, publications which specifically mention which genes are targeted by antineoplastons, and I said how can you claim that you’ve read and reviewed every Burzynski publication and you didn’t know which genes are targeted by antineoplastons when that’s specifically in the publications ? [10]

To me that tells me that you do not know how antineoplastons work be because you just admitted you don’t know which genes Burzynski talks about

I mean that’s just funny as heck to me that he would say that
——————————————————————
0:25:07
——————————————————————
Can you go ahead and send me that link that that I saw in the chat that you had uh posted a couple of times in the chat

Could you send me that link, to that publication

I can give you a minute to to go find it if that’s
——————————————————————
Well I’ve, I’ve got it on my blog

Uhm

I mean I can forward it to you at some point
——————————————————————
That would be good

Uhmmm
——————————————————————
But I agree with you about I don’t remember seeing anything about antineoplastons cutting off the blood flow to the, you know the blood brain barrier for sure either
——————————————————————
Well, yeah that’s a, that’s you know one of the major problems that this this cancer has is the location is such a pain to get to

Uhm, and often when we are talking about these cancers, the thing that gets me over and over and over, and this is something that I’ve learned from from working uh with others on the Burzynski Patient Group is what’s it like to be a cancer patient, only by proxy, man I couldn’t imagine really going through this myself, and, you know I’d hate to see my family go through this
——————————————————————
0:26:22
——————————————————————
That these people are at what could be described as a low point, they’re um uhhh, you get a diagnosis of uh brainstem glioma the prognosis is very bad

Uhmmm, there are only a few cases of people recovering from that, I mean they’re there uhm uhhh but, you know that it’s an, it’s an extremely grim prognosis

Uhhh and I worry that when they’re in that desperate state and especially let’s talk about the children, you have these kids who are uh you know 2 and 3 and have had this, you know uh awful diagnosis and the parents are willing to do literally anything to keep their kids alive
——————————————————————
27:16
——————————————————————
What protections are in place for patients as far as that these kids are and and their parents are protected
——————————————————————
0:27:30
——————————————————————
Well I think i know the point that you’re getting at uhhh about the IRB’s and all that good stuff

All I can say is that, you know the FDA can come in with any amount of investigators and say that you did this or that but you have the opportunity to respond, and so they can pretty much say anything, it’s only when the final report comes out that you can take that to the bank

And so all this speculation about what a investigative team may say about the clinic is, to me just like someone going into a lawsuit and saying so-and-so did this, you know, can you prove that, you know, did so-and-so do that [23]
——————————————————————
0:28:09
——————————————————————
So it’s the same thing with the FDA, these um little reports, the final report is what counts, and so, also what I find interesting is some of Burzynski’s publications specifically said, you know this particular uh clinical trial, the IRB was agreed upon by the FDA [24]

Well if if the FDA agreed upon it, you know, then some questions should arise about exactly what did the FDA agree upon

What would we find out from a Freedom of Information Act request on that ?

And, and what I also found interesting is when I did research on other clinical trials for brainstem glioma I found, you know, all these other science based medicine studies where 374 children had died in their studies [25]
——————————————————————
0:29:00
——————————————————————
And what I found interesting is back in 1999, they reported on a clinical trial, they had better results then all these clinical trials afterwards [18]
——————————————————————
Who had the better results ?
——————————————————————
Well, I would have to find you one, there were like 3
——————————————————————
Okay
——————————————————————
There were like 3 major ones that Burzynski has mentioned in his publications to cross-reference his trials versus their trials as far as the results

And so, I, there was one back in 1999 that had better results than a lot of these clinical trials that come afterwards

So when we talk about, you know, what’s really right for the patients well we can see that the drug companies want to test their drugs through clinical trials and, you know, and if your kid dies, well, unfortunately the kid dies

Even though we showed better results in 1999 with a different type of treatment, you would have thought that maybe they would have poured more investment into that particular treatment but that’s not necessarily how the clinical trial system works
——————————————————————
0:30:00
——————————————————————
Hmmm, yeah, the, Guy Chapman has just um uh tossed in a a, a comment

I guess uh that there are a lot of people who wanna talk to you (laughter)

Uh, Guy Chapman has just jumped in and said it looks like you forgot the phase 3 trial is withdrawn and none of the phase 2 trials were published

Uhmmm, this, this is not a minor thing for for for Skeptics

This, this is exactly what will convince us to get on board the Burzynski train is the publication of these trials

But even the preliminary trials, one has been finished, and none has been published in its entirety for over 15 years

When you consider that this is a, as you just pointed out, this is a a cancer, the, especially the brainstem gliomas

That these cancers uh the cases resolved fairly quickly, we know what the outcome are fairly quickly
——————————————————————
0:31:00
——————————————————————
Ummm, do you have any sense of when these trials are going to be published ?
——————————————————————
Well here’s my point, I mean, y’all probably get a better sense from, ummm, Hymas, about what’s going on with that
——————————————————————
From Laura ?
——————————————————————
From her uh fiancé, or husband, whatever his status happens to be right now (laugh)
——————————————————————
Right
——————————————————————
And uh also from Ric, uh they’re more closer to Burzynski than I am, because I have never met Burzynski, I have never e-mailed Burzynski, uhmmm never talked to Burzynski, never met him, blah blah blah

Uh, my sense is that since 1996 when the FDA talked about antineoplastons, that specific FDA Commissioner that was in charge at the time, he set out 7 major points about how there was going to be less people required and there was going to be less paperwork, there was going to be less stringent things about Partial Response [26]
——————————————————————
0:32:07
——————————————————————
And so, to me, the FDA is the final source to go to when people want to complain about how long their trials have lasted uh because the FDA is bottom line, you know, in charge of that

And
——————————————————————
When you, when you think about a major, sorry, go ahead
——————————————————————
And my other point is that, uhmmm, when these trials finish, as I’ve pointed out on my blog, M.D. Anderson finished a trial in 2006 and didn’t publish the results electronically until January of this year [27]

So, just think

Burzynski’s 1st trial we know that finished in 2009

So we would still have more years to go before he caught up to M.D. Anderson as far as publishing

So for him to actually be trying to publish stuff now and The Lancet not publishing because they have other stuff to do, put in there, that’s understandable
——————————————————————
0:33:03
——————————————————————
So, we know that he’s trying to publish, uh but they’re going to keep it close to the vest obviously, from, from how they do their things, and where they’re trying to publish

And plus, like I’ve said before
——————————————————————
Yeah, right, uh
——————————————————————
We’ve still got the accelerated approval thing that’s out there, you know, like the FDA’s given Temodar and, and Avastin, and another drug, whereas they’re not doing the same thing for antineoplastons, eve even though for all intents and purposes from what we know, antineoplastons have had better success rates than Temodar and Avastin when they were approved [13]
——————————————————————
Antineoplastons has a better rate ?
——————————————————————
Well from the information that’s been published in certain um publications
——————————————————————
Right
——————————————————————
And in, and in not only Burzynski’s but elsewhere in, in newspapers or articles, or such like that
——————————————————————
Right, one of the things that that there there are 2 points to be made here

Uhm, the 1st one is that major pharmaceutical companies that are getting this accelerated approval have a track record of producing results which Burzynski does not have

Secondly, when it comes to ummm the rates of antineoplastons, how can we possibly say without a single published trial he, that he has an improved rate over Temodar or anything like that, and that’s exactly what would show to us whether or not his rate is better, the the types of publications that he’s done, that look really good on paper, ummm, to the to the, the common persons eye are these case series where he goes through and picks out people who have happened to have survived
——————————————————————
0:34:47
——————————————————————
But what that doesn’t tell us is whether or not the antineoplaston had anything to do with it

What you need to do is go and separate the background noise, the random weird rare but very real survive, unexpected survivals that occur, and separate those, uhhh, from any effect of antineoplaston, he’s never done that
——————————————————————
0:35:10
——————————————————————
Well what I found interesting is when the FDA approved these other 1 or 2 drugs, some of them specifically said that, uhhh, some of these drugs had, you know, better survivability or they showed no better rate than any previous treatment but we’re approving it anyway [13]

Basically that’s what the publication said and I published this on my blog in an article specifically about, you know, those 2 or 3 drugs that the FDA approved for brainstem or brain related cancers [28]

And so, you know, I’m not going to buy that argument about that, about that specific thing
——————————————————————
But if you think about that, I mean that if it does have a a an improvement rate above uh other treatments
——————————————————————
0:36:03
——————————————————————
That still has an improvement rate, you know, that, that would give another option to people, ummm, even if in the aggregate their rates aren’t better

It might work on some individuals tumors rather than on, you know, you you it it is it taken as a, as a lump but extend life by uh quality of life for 3 months or something um in some cases but, you know, it it still has an effect, a real effect, and deserves to be out there
——————————————————————
Well one of these newspaper articles specifically said, you know, Avastin would maybe keep you alive for maybe 4 more months

So, you know, take that [2]
——————————————————————
That’s a long time when someone is dying
——————————————————————
Well, we can wonder if some of Burzynski’s results are the same, otherwise why would the FDA say, you know, give the ODD [10], why would the FDA give the phase 3 approval [12]
——————————————————————
0:37:02
——————————————————————
Plus I don’t buy some of these doctors coming out and saying stuff, they have the opportunity just like the other doctors in Egypt [29], in Russia [30], in Germany, in, in Poland [31], in China [32 – 33], in Taiwan [34] that have done antineoplaston studies, I’m like, these people can do antineoplaston studies so what’s the excuse for all these other doctors who say that they supposedly can’t do them

You know, the information’s out there and
——————————————————————
Well, one of
——————————————————————
and like these other doctors can do it
——————————————————————
One of the problems that that doctors have in in this country when it comes to doing ummm antineoplastons studies to verify any any effect that uh Burzynski has uhhh I i think back to the one where people say well that the FDA sabotaged his trials, and
——————————————————————
Well, we kind of know that that’s a fact [35]
——————————————————————
Clarification: NIH, NCI, and the Investigators
——————————————————————
Well, if if you think about it though, um, the, the proposed action as I understand it of the antineoplaston is that it’s a deacetylase inhibitor, which slightly unspools DNA, that allows uh, which would allow uh proteins to get into a pair of damaged DNA

And we have drugs that do that which carry a much lower sodium load

Uh, um, it, that would have a therapeutic effect on and that the risks outweigh the possible benefits of using this one particular drug

Um, I’ve seen any number of people looking at um, if you look at the Luna ah Pettiguine uh uh story on The Other Burzynski Patient Group um you see that the doctor is absolutely horrified by the insane sodium load that that Burzynski’s patients are carrying

Um in in some ways that that sodium load is uh leading people to constantly drinking up to I’ve seen 12 liters of water a day
——————————————————————
0:39:11
——————————————————————
That’s not necessary for other deacetylase inhibitors

Um the, why would you prefer that to to another drug if it did essentially the same thing, that didnt have this massive side effect ?
——————————————————————
Well what we know from 1996 from Burzynski’s own information that he’s published, is that not only does he have the original parent antineoplastons, but he’s developed 2nd and 3rd generations, but he can’t just stop in the middle of his clinical trial and use the 2nd and 3rd generations which may be better [36]

(Clarification: 1997)

He can't uh use these other types of um antineoplastons that other researchers, researchers like Egypt [29], or Japan [37] have found um that may be better because he can’t just switch in the middle of the clinical trial
——————————————————————
0:40:04
——————————————————————
Now if he, if the FDA approves his product, well then, maybe he can roll out the 2nd and 3rd generation and these other types of antineoplastons that may be less harsh, but that’s all he’s got to work on and that takes us back to the FDA, having control over the entire process, as far as the paperwork, how many people are in the trials, etcetera
——————————————————————
Well that sss I believe that that’s proposed by the researchers, the design trial, you know they they sign off on it but that is is, is up to uh Burzynski uh my uh David James @StortSkeptic on the [38]
——————————————————————
Right
——————————————————————
ah he has asked everything that Burzynski does looks sort of like the behaviors of pseudo-science
——————————————————————
0:40:56
——————————————————————
So what we’re saying uhhh he does uh uhhh Burzynski like for instance like I said he has vertically integrated, ah, he controls all parts from identification to the creation of the drug uh to the diagnosing uh well he doesn’t do the diagnosing but he does um um prescribe and distribute, he does all that vertically, which is actually something that snake oil salesmen do
——————————————————————
0:41:32
——————————————————————
Another thing that that’s a red flag in Skeptic circles is that his one compound seems to be a sort of panacea for all sorts of different types of, of of cancers, um where we know that cancer has a a varied uh, uh, ideology and and the uh panaceas are are are to be and a variety of different types of causes um, in fact in any one tumor you would, you could say that these, these tumors are are completely uh heterogenous

The idea that there’s gonna be one knockout, it seems rather unrealistic

Um, additionally he charges immense amounts of money for this drug, um, even though the components cost pennies

Um, on top of that, um, there’s something that he asks for a a huge payment up front
——————————————————————
0:42:33
——————————————————————
That’s something that’s been warned against for generations of uh by anti-quack um uh crusaders if if they’re asking for everything up front, then be afraid

Ummm, another thing is that uh the kind of cult that’s sprung up around Burzynski, uh, one that is immune to uh criticism, reason, and pits people who are doing standard cancer research, as enemies, um, creating a black and white version of the world where there are good people and there are bad people
——————————————————————
0:43:15
——————————————————————
There are people who are fighting the disease, and then there are people who are really helping the disease

I mean, if you look at the, the new web-site by the Burzynski patients fighting back group, they say support the cure not the cancer

That’s a manikin world-view of black and white
——————————————————————
0:43:30
——————————————————————
Um, these are all huge red flags, that you’re dealing with a quack

Um, why hasn’t Burzynski done anything to change that ?
——————————————————————
Well I find it interesting that you talk about the cost, because I’ve done a lot of research about the cost, and I was just looking at the cost again this morning, and put it into that particular blog article I was talking about, that I did for this particular program [39]

And, um
——————————————————————
0:44:00
——————————————————————
The thing that’s funny is that people can say, ohhh Burzynski charges a lot, but the fact is, so does chemo, radiation, and some of these newspaper articles that have been published, and specifically in the movie, Burzynski 2, one of the people mentioned how much someone was paying for standard treatment

And I noticed our
——————————————————————
Right
——————————————————————
favorite oncologist didn’t comment about that in his movie review [40]
——————————————————————
Well, there, this is important

This is really important though

Wha, when she’s talking about, that’s Luna Pettiguine’s mother, is is talking about the costs there

Uhmmm, you, when someone is not insured in in this country,

Ahm, the, the the base cost that that’s calculated is, is the hospital only expects to get a fraction, a tiny fraction of that back from the insurance companies, and that’s why the costs are so inflated

Um, usually, when a patient is self-pay there is a self-pay price which is a more reasonable price
——————————————————————
0:45:01
——————————————————————
Additionally, all of those therapies, have demonstrated efficacy, and if Burzynski were to demonstrate his efficacy, $30,000 dollars to start on a life-saving treatment for a child would be a steal, and he would earn every nickel of it

Um, so, those arguments hold very little weight with us
——————————————————————
Well what I find interesting, you know, I’m not sure how people think he’s supposed to pay for the clinical trials, you know, if he’s supposed to go into debt, millions of dollars
——————————————————————
He has a a an enormous house that’s valued in the tens of millions of dollars, he could do that if if the other, the other thing he could do, and this, we would love to see him do this, wousa, would be apply to Federal grant

That, that would be amazing, if he could get a grant to study this stuff

But, you know, um, I I don’t think he’d be able to get one, I don’t think he’s shown uh that he can carry off a uh a research program responsibly
——————————————————————
0:46:08
——————————————————————
Uhmmm
——————————————————————
I find that funny considering the FDA approved phase 3, has given him ODD for brainstem glioma and also also all gliomas [12]

You know, that’s kind of ridiculous [10]

And the people
——————————————————————
Well
——————————————————————
gettin’ off about his house, well who cares ?

They don’t know where his money came for that particular source
——————————————————————
(Clarification: “They don’t know the particular source where his money came from for that house”)
——————————————————————
Oh he, have you noticed the the, the thing on his web-site where if you make a donation to the clinic it goes directly to him ?
——————————————————————
Well, you know, when you have good tax lawyers your tax lawyers will tell you how to structure things, and everybody in America has the right to structure their taxes in a manner that effectively serves them according to our Supreme Court

So, if you have a tax lawyer who tells you, hey this is the best way to do it, to save money, well, you may do that uh based upon your lawyer’s advice
——————————————————————
0:47:00
——————————————————————
So, maybe Burzynski has taken his tax lawyers advice, just like I’m sure he’s taken Richard Jaffe’s ad advice (laugh), which has proved well, for him
——————————————————————
Right
——————————————————————
You know, you know

That’s another thing
——————————————————————
Ummm, o-kay

Uh, I want to turn this over to the people who are watching

Um, I want to give them a a chance to address you as well

Uhmmm, hi everyone

Uhmmm, so, um, let’s, let’s wait for for that to roll in, and I do wait to go back to the, the the, the and let’s be very specific about this, the the things that you see on The Other Burzynski Patent Group, a patient reporting that um uh getting worse is getting better

How do you explain that ?
——————————————————————
0:48:00
——————————————————————
Well I guess we could ask, you know, Ben and Laura Hymas [41]

What was their experience, you know ?

Did they have, did she have to drink uh a lot of water because she was thirsty ?

You know, did she have to drink a lot of water due to the high sodium ?
——————————————————————
Well that’s just a known side-effect, your going to know that going in, but we actually have people say
——————————————————————
So I would ask her about her personal experience instead of saying, you know, instead of quoting some of these other people
——————————————————————
Are there, why why why not, these people, see this is the thing though

The reason that site was started was because the people that don’t make it don’t have a voice

And when you, when you whittle away, when you only look at the at the, the positive outcomes, which is exactly in Burzynski’s favor to only look at the positive outcomes, and to have no sense of how other people’s diseases progressed, right, you’re gonna get a skewed and inaccurate version of the efficacy of this particular drug

Now lets lets lets go back and not talk about Laura, lets talk about these patients who report symptoms of getting worse, as if they were signs of getting better

Some people say that oh it’s a healing crisis or it’s progression of the disease

Or other people say it’s breaking up in the middle, hurrah
——————————————————————
0:49:20
——————————————————————
No, it’s actually a tumor that’s growing

That record there, that’s being left by patients, whose stories are every bit as important as the as the stories of the patients who have lived, are painting a completely different picture

How do you explain that ?
——————————————————————
Well we all know the FDA is in charge of this, and so hopefully they know what’s going on
——————————————————————
Are they feeding these people their stories ?

Are they feeding these people their stories
——————————————————————
No, I’m sure the FDA can look at the records because Burzynski sent them 2.5 million pages according to our friend Fabio [42]

0:50:00
——————————————————————
And uh, you know just something the doctors who came in and did the little ol’ one day, 6 patient records, where they reviewed all the records and slides, and MRI’s, etcetera, you know they can do the same thing, the FDA can do the same thing with all these patients [35]

(Clarification: 7)

And see the same MRI’s and scans, etcetera

I mean, we, we know that with all these 374 children I mentioned dying in other science-based medicine clinical trials [25]

I mean, they, FDA probably went through all their records

And, so, all these people didn’t look good either but, you know, the FDA still gave approval to Avastin and Te Temodar even though a lot of people died in their clinical trials [25]
————————————————�